Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BEDFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BlLL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next at Seven o'Clock.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

KENT WATER BILL (By Order)

LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

CREWE CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS BILL (By Order)

RHODESIAN SELECTION TRUST LIMITED AND ASSOCIATED COMPANIES BILL (By Order)

WANKIE COLLIERY BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills,

WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

WESLEYAN AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

TOWCESTER RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (ABTHORPE RATING) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Cinemas (Tax)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to encourage the production and exhibition of British films, he will now introduce discriminatory relief from entertainments tax when all-British programmes are shown.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Swingler: Would the Financial Secretary like to make history in this respect by indicating his right hon. Friend's acceptance of the principle involved in the admirable scheme submitted by the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association to assist the production of British films and also partially to meet the claims of exhibitors for a tax reduction?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member knows, it would be most improper for me to respond to his invitation. Is he not aware that the proposal contained in his Question is not the same as that put forward by the C.E.A.?

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he has received from the entertainments tax on cinemas in the current financial year up to the latest date for which figures are available compared with the amount he received in the same period of 1952–53; and how the amount received compares with his estimate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Entertainments Duty receipts from cinemas in the period 1st April, 1953, to 31st January, 1954, amounted to £31·57 million compared with £31·68 million in the corresponding period of 1952–53. Receipts are broadly in line with expectations.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the Chancellor's undertaking last year to watch the effects of this duty very carefully in view of the continued fall in cinema attendances, which is undoubted, would the Financial Secretary care to say whether in his opinion a case for a reduction in this duty has been made out?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman must await my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Tate Gallery Administration

Mr. Edelman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what inquiries he has made since September, 1949, into the administration of the Tate Gallery; and what action he has taken in consequence.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No formal inquiries into the administration of the Tate Gallery were instituted during the period to which the hon. Member refers. The Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury undertook various assignments at the Gallery; and in 1952 an experienced civil servant was made availableby the Treasury to advise the trustees on a number of problems which had arisen in the internal management of the Gallery. In all these cases it has been for the trustees and not for my right hon. Friend to take such subsequent action as was appropriate.

Mr. Edelman: Were not these two investigations undertaken because allegations had been made of irregularities inside the Tate Gallery, and, in consequence of the first inquiry, was it not the

case that a senior official of the publication department was dismissed; and, in the case of the second inquiry, was not action taken by the Treasury in order to put certain matters in order? In view of these new circumstances which are now disclosed, will the Financial Secretary not recommend to his right hon. Friend that a public inquiry should be instituted in order to allay the grave disquiet which is being felt?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot accept a number of the implications in the hon. Member's supplementary question, but on the real point, as I understand it, at the end of his supplementary question, I would say that this matter has been, as my answer disclosed, very carefully looked at, and I am confident that the very distinguished body of trustees will do what is appropriate in the circumstances.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the new situation that has arisen since the resignation of Mr. Graham Sutherland, and will he take that into account when keeping this matter under review, as I hope he will continue to do?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The resignation of the distinguished gentleman in question is an important aspect of the matter which will certainly be borne in mind.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Is the Financial Secretary aware that there is widespread disquiet, both at the irregularities that have taken place, and also, I think it fair to say, about the various errors of judgment which have been made, and since the Treasury is responsible for the appointment of these trustees, whether public or private, why does not the Minister decide to hold a public inquiry to allay the public anxiety which exists?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not accept the implication of public disquiet. As the hon. Member will be aware, the irregularities—if he has in mind the departures from the terms of the trust deed which the trustees have disclosed—took place over a number of years and in circumstances for which a good many of the present trustees were not responsible. I hope that the hon. Member will bear this in mind.

Double Taxation (Anglo-German Negotiations)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present state of negotiations for a double taxation agreement with the West German Government; and when he expects a convention will be signed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Negotiations are almost complete, but one or two small points remain to be settled. I hope that signature of the agreement will not be long delayed.

Income Groups (Expenditure)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistics are avail able to him to enable some estimate to be made of the proportion of income spent, respectively, on food, rent, and fuel, by the various income groups; and to what extent this estimate influences policy in relation to food subsidies, rent and rates.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): I regret that no official statistics are at present available showing the distribution of expenditure for different income groups.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister attempt to make such information available? Would he not agree that the increases in price of the commodities mentioned in the Question hit the lower income groups much harder than the higher income groups? Is it not significant that over the last two and a half years the prices of these commodities have gone up much higher than the prices of other commodities?

Mr. Maudling: Without entering into the rather vexed question of movements of prices, I should like to tell the hon. Member that the Ministry of Labour's household budget inquiry which is now in progress will, when completed, provide data from which we can furnish figures of this kind.

Private Traders (Dollar Currency)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what purposes, other than the purchase of Canadian barley, unlimited amounts of dollar currency are available on application by private individuals.

Mr. Maudling: Dollars are freely available for payments for certain services and for goods which are on world open general licence or for which the Board of Trade have issued an open individual licence covering imports from the dollar area.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I regret the vague nature of that reply. Is the Economic Secretary of opinion that the balance of payments position has moved so much in our favour as to justify unlimited dollar expenditure on commodities of which the Ministry of Food hold vast stocks, which can only be sold at a loss of millions of pounds to the taxpayer?

Mr. Maudling: I do not know what was vague about my reply; the hon. and gallant Member asked for certain information, which I have given him. Particulars of the articles on world open general licence are contained in the first schedule of the current open general import licence and range from pig iron to natural untrimmed silkworm gut.

Information Division Publication(Cost)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it cost to print and distribute "Broadsheet on Britain No. 32"prepared by the Information Division of the Treasury; and to whom it was distributed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The cost of printing was £199 3s. 6d. and of distribution about £21 2s. It was distributed as usual to some 90 trade unions, to foremen, and others in industry, and to adult education, citizenship and other voluntary organisations. Additional copies were supplied on request to agricultural organisations.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Was it really worth incurring even this comparatively small expenditure for the purpose of conveying such piffling platitudes as, "From the soil comes most of our food," "The cost of food affects us all," "We are all in it together," and so on?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The purpose of this publication, as of its predecessors in this series, which have continued for a good many years, was to underline the importance of agriculture to our national


economy. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member does not dispute that that is desirable.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the Prime Minister has made very pungent comment on platitudes?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I accept the first half of that supplementary question.

Coronation Crown Pieces

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the unsatisfied public demand for crown pieces, more of these coins will be minted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Power to strike Coronation crown pieces lapsed on 31st December last. By that date all outstanding demands from the banks had been satisfied. A small surplus of a few thousand crown pieces is available at the Mint for issue to banks if asked for.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Financial Secretary aware that inadequate supplies of crown pieces, as well as of the proof sets of Coronation coinage, have presented dealers with a black market bonus? Would it not be worth while for the Mint to make some money instead of making farthings which cost a halfpenny each to produce?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Had the hon. and gallant Member listened to my answer, he would have appreciated that anyone who made a black market bargain in these circumstances was singularly unwise, in as much as the Mint still has several thousand of these pieces available for anyone who likes to ask for them.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is the Financial Secretary aware that there is an unsatisfied demand for most coinage today?

Shillings and Sixpences

Mr. I. O. Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of a shortage of shillings in Shropshire and other Midland counties, and of the difficulties such shortage is causing to people who are dependent upon shillings for slot meter supplies of gas and electricity for domestic purposes; and if he will take steps to remedy such shortage.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is

aware of the continued shortage of shilling coins, particularly in Monmouthshire, and that, in spite of the increased circulation, embarrassment is being experienced by those using slot machines; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have had no specific complaint about shortages in the areas mentioned by the hon. Members. But I am aware that early in 1953 the banks reported a general shortage of shillings and sixpences. To remedy this the Royal Mint issued to the banks, through whom distribution is, of course, effected, between 1st January,1953, and 5th February, 1954, 72 million shillings and 72 million sixpences. The Mint is operating on a programme which provides for the continued issue of these denominations at the rate of 36 million coins a quarter. In sending particular quantities and denominations of coins to particular branch banks the Mint acts at the request of their head offices.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware of the practice, which is reported to be developing in this and other areas where shortages are being experienced, of enterprising young capitalists of school age who go around from door to door offering shilling pieces for sale at 1s. 3d.? Does this enterprise coincide with the right hon. Gentleman's theories and principles on free enterprise? Is he aware that recently the gas and electricity boards have lengthened their intervals between collections from six weeks to three months, and will he take steps to get the boards to revert to more frequent collections?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Questions about the practice of gas and electricity boards are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. On the merits of the general question, as my answer indicated, we are aware that there has been a shortage of these two coins, and as my answer made clear, we are taking vigorous steps to increase the supply. The question of distribution is one for the banks, and it is for the branch bank in any area where a shortage develops to notify its head office.

Building Societies (Interest Rates)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the fact that following the


increase in the Bank rate, building societies in general throughout the country, increased their mortgage interest rates, but that when the Bank rate was reduced last September no corresponding reduction was made by the building societies to their mortgagees; and whether he will introduce legislation to compel building societies to reduce their mortgage interest rates.

Mr. Maudling: The rates of interest which building societies charge on their loans are for settlement between the societies and mortgagors. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the Economic Secretary realise that the interest rate was put up consequent upon the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in raising the Bank rate, and that the Chancellor subsequently reduced the Bank rate but that this benefit has not been passed on to mortgagors? Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that he ought to do something about this if the cherished ideal of the Conservative Party—that this is a property-owning democracy—is ever to come to fruition?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member is reading too much into what was a purely technical adjustment of the Bank rate in September, 1953. In any case, I certainly should not interfere with the activities of the building societies, which, I consider, are a great asset to the country.

Steel Company Shares (Sale)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the failure of the offer for sale of Lancashire Steel Company shares, he will now take steps to terminate the sale to private interests of publicly owned assets in the iron and steel industry.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer both to the suggestion of fact and to the interrogation on policy is "No, Sir."

Mr. Jay: Is it not rather deplorable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who ought to be guarding the public interest, should be engaged in trying unsuccessfully to sell public assets to City interestswho do not much want to buy them and who have nothing to contribute to the steel industry?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The last part of that supplementary question is purely an expression of the right hon. Gentleman's doctrinal opinion. On the merits of the matter, of course the shares were sold, and I am sure that the House will be touched by the right hon. Gentleman's tenderness for the interests of the consortium.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: When considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the question of whether it is worth spending the hundreds of thousands of pounds entailed in each of these flotations to bring about a mere temporary change in the ownership of these shares?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than most that the merits of this matter were discussed at great length in the House and that this House decided that the steel industry should be returned to private enterprise. On the second part of his question, I should not like too vigorously to dash the right hon. Gentleman's hopes, but I do not think he is on a very good thing.

Mr. Osborne: Is it not a fact that the threat of this temporary ownership is the cause of why the shares could not be sold? Is it not the vicious campaign of hon. Members opposite to prevent this?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that my hon. Friend exaggerates the importance which intelligent opinion attributes to the views and policies of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Jay: Has not experience shown on this occasion that the minority in this House was right?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the right hon. Gentleman will live to regret that prophecy.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Morley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider imposing a capital levy in order to raise funds to pay off the outstanding post-war credits.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Mr. Morley: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the suggestions made in the Question were first put forward by a very distinguished economist, the late Lord Keynes, and if this suggestion were


put into operation his right hon. Friend would earn great popularity by paying out post-war credits without any fear of inflation?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate fully the very understandable and legitimate public desire to see the payment of post-war credits accelerated, but I can think of no more disastrous method of accelerating them than by indulging in the old-fashioned and, I thought, discredited expedient of a capital levy.

Foreign Travel Allowance (Dollar Countries)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost, in dollars, would be this year of allowing a travel allowance for the United States of America at the same rate as for non-dollar countries.

Mr. Maudling: It is impossible to estimate at all closely what the cost would be, but it would certainly be substantial.

Mr. Grimond: On what has the Chancellor based his decision not to allow it, and does the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the ordinary traveller will ever be able to go to the United States again?

Mr. Maudling: I would be most anxious to provide exchange travel facilities and exchange for travellers to all parts of the world, but we have to have regard to the dollar balance of payments, and, in the present state of the dollar reserves, it would not be justifiable to have a dollar travel allowance.

Canadian Newsprint

Sir G. Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to allocate sufficient foreign exchange to allow of the import of Canadian newsprint to meet the proper needs of the newspaper industry.

Mr. Maudling: Newsprint supplies are under discussion between my noble Friend the Minister of Materials and representatives of the newspapers. I should not wish to prejudice the decision on any proposals that may be made as a result of these discussions, but the balance of payments situation will not permit any large increase in the immediate future in imports of newsprint from any source.

Mr. J. T. Price: Can the Minister say what are the proper needs of the newspaper industry in view of our experience of the way the extra space was used after the last increase in newsprint?

Mr. Maudling: The proper needs of the industry are determined by the proper requirements of the consumer.

Agricultural Commodities (Dollar Purchases)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now give details of the commodities which will be bought with the recently announced allotment by the United States of America of dollars for the purchase of agricultural commodities.

Mr. Maudling: The allotment recently announced is of 20 million dollars under Section 541 of the United States Mutual Security Act. It completes the total allotment of 55 million dollars proposed for the United Kingdom under this Section. Proposals for spending the dollars made available will be discussed with the United States shortly and announced as soon as agreement is reached.

Mr. Grimond: May we take it that eggs are not included as one of the commodities?

Mr. Maudling: This particular form of aid is an extension of defence support aid, and I doubt if eggs come under that heading.

Arts Council (Grants)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of money allocated as grants in aid to the Arts Council, since its formation to date, has been made available for the acquisition of a total or partial interest in ballet, opera or theatre companies; and what are the names of the companies.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir.

Miss Ward: Is there any likelihood of any alteration in the policy of the Arts Council as approved by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Lady will put that question down.

Currency and Bank Notes Act

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to bring the Currency and Bank Notes Act of 1954 into operation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: An order entitled the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1954 (Commencement) Order, 1954, bringing the Act into operation on 22nd February has been signed today and will be published tomorrow. The revocation of Defence (Finance) Regulations 7AA and 7AB will therefore take effect on Monday.

Dividends (Increase)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much net ordinary dividends were raised in 1953; and if he will give an estimate of how much per week the average basic wage rate would have been increased if this sum had been distributed to the workers instead of to shareholders.

Mr. Maudling: The increase in ordinary dividends after tax, between 1952 and 1953, is estimated at about £25 million; this amount, if divided among the wage earners employed by companies, roughly estimated at 10 million, is equal to about 1s. per week.

Mr. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the "Economist" last week estimated a figure of 5½d.? Whichever figure is true, will he do his best to see that the significance of this figure is widely appreciated in the country, and not least by some of the Oxford dons sitting opposite?

Mr. Maudling: I would hesitate at any time to question the accuracy of the "Economist,"but my figures were based on the number of wage earners employed by the companies actually paying a dividend, whereas the "Economist" figures were based on the total number of wage earning and salaried employees, including Government employees, and so on. As far as publicity for these facts is concerned, I am sure my hon. Friend will contribute largely in that direction.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would the hon. Gentleman say what were the respective contributions of the workers and the shareholders to the provision of this wealth?

Mr. Maudling: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a Question of that kind on the Paper.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Economic Secretary justifying the over-payments to the moneylenders on the grounds that the share-out for the workers would not be very high?

Mr. Maudling: There is nothing in this Question about moneylenders.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Collectors of Taxes (Senior Assistants' Pay)

Mr. Houghton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the delay in adjusting the scale of pay of senior assistant collectors of taxes following recent pay awards; and whether he will expedite matters.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A new scale of pay was offered to the Staff Association concerned on 15th February.

Mr. Houghton: Is the Minister aware that the arbitration awards which govern this decision were made last October and that adjustments, when made, will be retrospective to 1st January, 1953? Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered the docility of the civil servants and is it not well that these men are represented by the Inland Revenue Staff Federation and not by the E.T.U.?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure the docility of the hon. Member is a most admirable feature of him.

Deputy Secretaries (Equal Pay)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women deputy secretaries are drawing equal pay.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Two, Sir.

Miss Ward: I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the recent 100 per cent. increase, but is it not most unfair that at the top and at the bottom equal pay should prevail but that in between there is no equal pay? Will he please get rid of this absurd anomaly?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady is very well aware of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this matter, and I do not think I should help her very much by reiterating it again this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL OPPOSITION DOCUMENTS (FRANKING)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary to the Treasury why Her Majesty's official Opposition are not allowed to send out their written whips and other official documents in franked envelopes, similarly to Her Majesty's Government; and whether he will take the necessary action to ensure that Her Majesty's official Opposition enjoy the same privileges in this connection as Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I see no reason to make a change in the present practice which has been the same at least since 1895.

Mr. Lewis: Because the practice has been in operation so long does not mean that it should not be altered. Is the Minister aware that in many respects Her Majesty's Opposition has proved itself to be acting more in the interests of the people and the country than Her Majesty's Government, and, on those grounds alone, will he see that it gets the same facilities as Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that that is a very good argument. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the state of affairs was maintained by the Administration between 1945 and 1951.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Landrace Pigs

Sir R. Boothby: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now state the policy of his Department with regard to the importation of Swedish Landrace pigs.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now allow the importation of more Landrace pigs for breeding purposes in Scotland.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Sir Thomas Dugdale): At the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, an Order will be made permitting the import of a limited number of Landrace pigs into Scotland, subject to veterinary safeguards. I am not at present satisfied that a further import into England and Wales is

justified, but I am keeping under review the whole question of future imports of Landrace pigs.

Sir R. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the result of his policy is that the English farmers have had to pay £1,000 for a Landrace pig, that the farmers in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have got them for one-tenth of that price, and that the Scottish farmers have not been allowed to import them on any scale? How does the right hon. Gentleman, as an English Minister, justify his action in refusing to allow Scottish farmers to get the best pig for the job, after urging those farmers to produce the best quality bacon?

Sir T. Dugdale: If the hon. Gentleman will read my answer, he will see that I shall allow some pigs into Scotland in the immediate future. My responsibility here is for animal health, and I must be extremely careful about the importation of any live animals from the Continent.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister say how many pigs he will allow to be imported into Scotland, and can he tell us why there should be these restrictions on their import?

Sir T. Dugdale: The restriction is purely on animal health grounds, because we must be extremely careful as far as health is concerned. As regards numbers, I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Transit of Horses (Casualties)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of horses, for the year 1953, returned by owners of horse-carrying vessels, under Section 13 of the Horses (Sea Transport) Order, 1952, as having died or having been killed or injured in transit.

Sir T. Dugdale: There were nine casualties among the 17,000 horses shipped to or from Great Britain during 1953. Six horses died and three had to be slaughtered because of illness or injury.

Mr. Chapman: Since the Sea Transport Order was introduced primarily because of the abuse and because of the notoriety of this traffic across the Irish Sea, do not those figures indicate that the Order is almost a dead letter already, when only


nine casualties are reported out of 17,000 horses carried in this nefarious traffic? What is the Minister going to do in order to get a proper check on the strips?

Sir T. Dugdale: I should have thought that the figures gave an entirely different construction and that they showed a satisfactory position. If, however, the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of contravention of the Order and will let me have it, I shall be glad to look into it.

Imbra Trap (Trials)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement on the results of the trial of the Imbra humane rabbit trap.

Sir T. Dugdale: These trials will be going on throughout the current trapping season and I do not expect to reach any definite conclusions until the end of April or early in May, when the trapping season ends.

Wing Commander Bullus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread feeling about the continued use of the gin trap, and will he kindly speed up the provision of any humane alternative?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, and whilst I entirely sympathise with the House and am doing my utmost to speed up some alternative to the gin trap, we must be certain that before we discard it we have an effective substitute. I had hoped to be able to report to the House this month but, owing to the recent hard frost, as I have said, I shall not be able to report to the House on the latest experiments before April or May.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that his Joint Parliamentary Secretary recently implored this House to give him every assistance in preventing disease from killing off the rabbits which ought to be preserved for the rabbit and fur trade? Could the Minister explain the contradiction between the two policies, where on the one hand the Ministry is trying to preserve rabbits for the market and on the other is trying to invent traps to kill them?

Sir T. Dugdale: My hon. Friend said nothing of the kind. This is an entirely different question. As the House knows, I set up a committee under my

hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the curious disease of myxo-matosis, which I hope will report in the early spring.

Vegetables

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement on the prospects in respect to the supply of green vegetables in the late spring.

Sir T. Dugdale: The long spell of mild weather before Christmas brought on many crops more rapidly than usual. The recent frost has destroyed some standing crops in exposed situations and checked others severely. The combination of these factors may mean that supplies of green vegetables in the late spring will be smaller than they would otherwise have been. It is, however, too early to make any firm estimate, since weather conditions in the next weeks will affect the rate and extent of recovery of the damaged crops and the growth of the rest.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trade is now predicting a period of high-priced scarcity, and in view of the importance of the matter, will he give an assurance that in the event of a shortage he will not use his influence to prevent a sufficient quantity being imported to keep the prices down to a reasonable level?

Sir T. Dugdale: Naturally I cannot give any assurance as to what the climate will be during the next few weeks, but I am informed that there is no need for undue pessimism as long as the weather is favourable.

Mr. Dodds: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.

Peas (Bacterial Blight)

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many outbreaks of bacterial blight of peas there have been in this country recently; and what steps are being taken to eliminate the risk of infection through infected seed.

Sir T. Dugdale: There is no authentic record of any outbreak of bacterial blight of peas in the United Kingdom and I understand that there is no imminent danger of the disease becoming established here through infected seed from


abroad. I do not propose to take any special measures at the present time to control imports of pea seed but the position will be carefully watched.

Welsh Rural Areas (White Paper)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture what reply he has had from the Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society about the proposal in Command Paper No. 9014, paragraph 59 (5), to consider group contracts and the setting up of a co-operative society for farm improvements.

Sir T. Dugdale: The Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society has readily accepted my invitation and will, early next month, begin a survey to find how far group action could help in getting work done on Livestock Rearing Act and marginal production schemes in the remote areas of Wales.

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Welsh Sub-Commission has yet been asked to in vestigate the types of fanning calculated to make the most efficient use of the resources of the Welsh rural areas, as stated in Command Paper No. 9014, paragraph 59 (3); and whether he will state the exact terms of reference.

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. With permission, I will circulate in the Official Report a copy of the terms of reference to the Agricultural Land Commission. This has been delegated by the Commission to the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission.

Mr. Watkins: Is it the intention of the Ministry to employ extra staff for this work in order that we may get a fairly early report?

Sir T. Dugdale: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question down, because it is a rather different one.

Following are the terms of reference:
The Agricultural Land Commission are asked, in the light of the White Paper on Rural Wales (Cmd. 9014), and with a view to the further development of a stable and prosperous rural economy in Wales, to advise the Minister on the best use of land within the Reference area, and on the measures necessary to attain it, and in particular:

(a) To advise what types of farms are calculated to make the most efficient use of the resources of the area (vide paragraph 22 of Cmd. 9014).

(b) To advise what pattern of ownership and occupation is best suited to the types of farming advocated, what cost in the provision or improvement of fixed and movable equipment would be entailed, what increase in production could be expected to follow, and what would be the consequential increase in the value of the land (vide paragraph 23 of Cmd. 9014).
(c) To consult with the Forestry Commission on the suitability of some of the land in the reference area for afforestation (vide paragraph 25 of Cmd. 9014).

Volunteer Labour Camps

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of volunteer agricultural camps to be set up for 1954; and if he will give the areas of placing.

Sir T. Dugdale: Seventeen, of which four will be in Lincolnshire, three in Northumberland, two each in Oxford and Wiltshire and one each in the Isle of Ely, Rutland, Shropshire, Warwick, and the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. and learned Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Labour are at present sabotaging his efforts in these camps by preventing foreigners who want to work and live in them from going there, although farmers, at any rate in north Lincolnshire, badly need their help?

Sir T. Dugdale: I am satisfied that my right hon. and learned Friends have done nothing of the kind.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the Minister aware of the great concern felt by growers on the Isle of Ely that the Minister, although allowing a voluntary holiday camp, is closing down other camps needed for labour in the fruit-picking season?

Sir T. Dugdale: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to a different kind of camp.We have that position very much in view, but the House must realise that these camps are extremely costly and the kind referred to in the Question are in areas where there is a definite demand.

Training Schemes

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Agriculture what consideration is being given to the training schemes which have operated since the end of the war by his


Department; and if he will state the number of entrants for training for the years 1947 up to and including 1953.

Sir T. Dugdale: Training schemes for disabled persons and for ex-regular members of Her Majesty's Forces began after the war and a third more general scheme was begun in 1949. These schemes serve a useful purpose and it is my intention to continue them. Under these schemes, nearly 17,000 people have, in the period mentioned, been entered for training. A fourth scheme for training young towns-people began in 1951 and in its first three years there have been some 2,700 entrants.

Mr. Slater: Whilst I am satisfied that the Minister is prepared to continue with these schemes, is he aware that when young men are called up for National Service many farmers are gravely concerned about finding labour to take on their duties, and can anything be done to assist the farmers who find themselves in that position?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is an entirely different question.

Agricultural Products (Marketing Schemes)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now give further details of the Government's proposals for the marketing of agricultural produce outlined in the White Paper Command No. 8989.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress he has made in examining the scheme submitted to him by the National Farmers' Union for the marketing of fat stock by grade and deadweight; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he is handing the Milk Marketing Boards back to the producers.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture how soon it is proposed to make effective the restoration of powers to the Milk Marketing Board.

Sir T. Dugdale: On milk, discussions have been proceeding with all the interested parties and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food hopes next week to make an announcement about

the restoration of certain powers to the Milk Marketing Boards as from 1st April.
Details of the arrangements for deficiency payments for cereals from the 1954 harvest have been announced. The Ministry of Food will no longer be a support buyer but will continue to operate the drying and storage facilities of re- commissioned mills during 1954. The precise method of operation is now under consideration.
On potatoes, the guarantee for the 1955 harvest will be provided by a support price system which could be operated through a Potato Marketing Board if one is established. Agreement on this has been reached with the National Farmers' Unions subject to the level of the support price to be determined for the 1955 harvest in the light of the Annual Review.
Discussions on long-term marketing and guarantee arrangements for eggs are proceeding.
On meat, the statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food yesterday showed that good progress has been made in preparing the arrangements that will operate on decontrol next summer. Details of the price guarantees will be announced after the Annual Review. I understand that the National Farmers' Unions will be submitting a fat stock marketing scheme as envisaged in the recent White Paper in the near future.

Mr. Hurd: This is a welcome sign of some progress. May we take it that the Government will help forward these marketing schemes on lines that will give price stability and at the same time ensure greater efficiency and economy for the benefit of consumers as well as producers in the marketing of home produce?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, most certainly, and the basis of examination of marketing schemes submitted to me will be on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jay: Do these arrangements imply a total of food and agriculture subsidies next year similar to those of this year, which were so much in excess of the Chancellor's estimates?

Sir T. Dugdale: These Questions are entirely to do with marketing arrangements.

Mr. S. N. Evans: When the Milk Marketing Board's powers are restored, what


will be the Minister's attitude to the proposed advertising campaign designed to increase the sale of liquid milk? Is it not a fact that every additional gallon sold will cost the taxpayer 5d. by way of subsidy? If this is so, would not the money be better spent on educating farmers to the need for high yields, lower costs and reduced selling prices?

Sir T. Dugdale: I cannot accept the implications of the hon. Member's question, and I think that he had better wait until full details are available.

Mr. Godber: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he is really doing all he can to help forward the formulation of a voluntary Marketing Board, as was envisaged by the White Paper of last autumn and the subsequent debate?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Champion: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the National Dairymen's Association on the Marketing Board proposals and, if so, what was the result?

Sir T. Dugdale: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food has dealt with that side of the negotiations.

Mr. Speaker: Major Anstruther-Gray.

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order. I had Question No. 49 down for reply from the Minister, and he has answered it. I

REFERENCES TO THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS COMMISSION UNDER SECTIONS 84, 86 AND 87 OF THE AGRICULTURE ACT, 1947


Reference Area
Date of Reference
Number of owners
Number of occupiers


Section 84


Romney Marsh, Kent and East Sussex
20th February, 1948
…
283
355


Malltraeth Marsh, Anglesey
…
11th May, 1948
…
72
93


Borth Bog, Cardiganshire
…
11th May, 1948
…
29
31


Lakenheath Fen, Suffolk
…
23rd March, 1949
…
87
72


Over and Bare Fen, Cambridge
…
22nd September, 1949
…
70
40


Swaffham Prior and Burwell Fen, Cambridge.
5th December, 1949
…
112
116


Herne Bay and Whitstable, Kent
…
29th September, 1950 (note below)
…
—
—


Caldicot and Wentlloog Levels, Monmouthshire.
23rd October, 1950
…
489
437


Section 86 Nil.


Section 87


Yetminster, Dorsetshire
…
22nd June, 1949
…
47
35

wanted to put a supplementary question to him with regard to the Milk Marketing Board. May I have your permission, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I did not realise that.

Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. Friend tell members of the Milk Marketing Board that when the Board is restored this summer they will be able to sell milk to very much better advantage than it has been sold over the years by the Ministry of Food? In other words, they will be selling manufacturing milk in the best possible markets.

Sir T. Dugdale: I hope and believe that that will be the case.

Land Commission (References)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the names of all areas referred to the Agricultural Land Commission for investigation and report under Sections 84, 86 and 87, respectively, of the Agriculture Act, 1947; the dates of the several references; and the number of owners and occupiers in each area who owned land or had tenancies in the respective areas.

Sir T. Dugdale: As my answer includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Netting of Rabbits (Caldra System)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the Caldra system of netting rabbits, upon which favourable reports have recently been received in Scotland; and what steps he is taking to further the use of this method in England in view of the fact that it is more humane than using traps and fully as effective on suitable terrain.

Sir T. Dugdale: Officers of my Department were present at the demonstration in Scotland referred to in the replies given to my hon. and gallant Friend on 2nd and 9th February by the Secretary of State and Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. They report that the Caldra system of netting rabbits would be effective when conditions were suitable for its use. I will consider whether I can usefully take any steps to bring this system of catching rabbits to the notice of farmers and others in this country.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the promising nature of this and other methods of dealing with the rabbit population, would not my right hon. Friend indicate that he will be prepared to try to reduce the period before which the gin trap is abolished?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is a different point. This particular method is an extension of the old-established system of long netting. I have studied it very carefully and it can be effective on flat ground.

Requisitioned Land

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the areas which were requisitioned under War Emergency Regulations, and have been acquired by him under compulsory powers granted under Section 85 of the Agriculture Act, 1947; the dates the several areas were informed of his intention to acquire; the number of owners and occupiers involved in each area; the acreage in each area involved; the number who appealed to the Agricultural Land Tribunal; and the number of these whose appeals were upheld.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am sending my hon. Friend a statement giving the information desired.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the Minister realise that the information, which I presume is supplied by these answers, would be subject to cross-examination and would be produced as evidence in an open court of English law if a dispossessed farmer had the right to appeal on points of fact and merit, whereas all we can do now is deal with the matter by Question and answer in the House?

Sir T. Dugdale: My hon. Friend had better wait until he sees the statement.

Apples and Pears (Marketing Scheme)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture the cost to the taxpayer of the promotion and administration to date of the Apple and Pear Marketing Scheme.

Sir T. Dugdale: The expenses in respect of the public inquiry into objections to the apple and pear marketing scheme and the reimbursement to the Apple and Pear Marketing Board of a part of their initial expenses amounted to £5,258 2s.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. Friend give up all attempts at State trading and leave trading and marketing to experts?

Sir T. Dugdale: The Marketing Board has nothing whatever to do with State trading.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Report)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister ofAgriculture when he expects to receive the report of the Gowers Committee on foot-and-mouth disease.

Sir T. Dugdale: By May or June.

Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety and interest and even impatience with which the conclusions of this Committee are awaited, particularly with regard to the use of vaccines? Will he represent to the Committee that they should expedite their report?

Sir T. Dugdale: The Committee are proceeding as fast as they can. They are a very high-powered Committee and they will have a great deal of influence on the future of the livestock industry in this country. I am perfectly satisfied that they are getting on as quickly as possible.

Common Land

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will set up a committee to inquire into the subject of common land.

Sir T. Dugdale: I have taken note of my hon. Friend's suggestion but cannot yet say whether it would be expedient to adopt it.

Mr. Williams: Whilst realising that this is a very controversial subject, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is not aware that a great deal could be done to produce more on common land? As this is such an intricate subject, does he not appreciate that the only way to tackle it is by forming a committee to go into the whole matter?

Sir T. Dugdale: We are examining this matter very carefully and I am discussing it with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. There are one or two points to be cleared up at present.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman man aware that this is a problem all over the country? Does he remember the case of the Shenstone commoners which was referred to his Department and in which the legal tangle was such that his Department could not help?

Sir T. Dugdale: I do.

Mr. Baldwin: Would my right hon. Friend consult his liaison officers who are practical men who know about the subject, because the question of making common land of the maximum use to commoners and to the country is very important and must be tackled?

Sir T. Dugdale: Although the liaison officers give me valuable advice, I do not think that they could help me on a subject of this kind.

Land, Reigate (Use)

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture why, in a case to which his attention has been drawn by the hon. Member for Reigate, his Department gave consent to a local authority for a change of user for a property without giving the owner of the land an opportunity to state his views.

Sir T. Dugdale: Since February, 1952, it has been the practice of my Depart-
ment to notify owners and occupiers of proposals by public bodies for the development of agricultural land referred to the Department for comment under the planning arrangements. The case to which my hon. Friend refers was dealt with before the introduction of this arrangement.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend look into the facts again, because that is not the information which has been given to me?

The Fens (Concrete Roads)

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet completed his review of the problem of maintaining the concrete roads laid down in the Fens by his Department during the war; and if he will make a statement.

Sir T. Dugdale: Some 41 miles of these concrete roads have been taken over by county councils. Responsibility for the maintenance of 71 miles has been placed on internal drainage boards and an order placing the responsibility for maintenance of the remaining nine miles on an internal drainage board will be made shortly. Nine miles of the roads have been abandoned. I am studying this problem, but have no further statement to make at present.

Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although responsibility has been placed on the internal drainage boards, it is often a very hard responsibility for them to bear and that meantime these roads are fast deteriorating, which will have a serious effect on food production unless something is done? Will my right hon. Friend consider this matter further and do something at the earliest possible moment?

Sir T. Dugdale: As I said, I am studying the problem.

Mr. John MacLeod: Is the Minister aware that high freight charges are forcing more and more traffic on to these rural roads and that the 10 per cent. increases proposed will further deteriorate these roads? As the Minister is now in the Cabinet, will be bring this forcibly home to the Prime Minister?

Sir T. Dugdale: The Question deals only with the Fens.

Pig Meal (Prices)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied that the price of the standard ration of feeding-stuffs for pigs calculated by his Department have been reduced from 33s. 6d. a hundredweight on 1st April last to 29s. 3d. a hundredweight now reflects accurately the actual prices which farmers are paying for compound pig meals.

Sir T. Dugdale: The feed price of 29s. 3d. per cwt. relates to straight feeds for which wholesale price quotations are secured at or near mills. The prices of compounds delivered to farmers are normally higher, but the difference was taken into account when the basic price of pigs was determined following the 1953 Annual Review.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend has not answered the Question I sought to put to him. Is he satisfied that the trend of commercial prices which farmers are paying for pig meal is accurately reflected by this official calculation? The experience of farmers is that it is not accurately reflected, and I should like to know what he thinks about it.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am prepared to consider any evidence my hon. Friend cares to bring before my notice. In answering the Question I explained the basis on which it is calculated.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: On this question of pigs and pork, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the statement issued today by the London Retail Meat Traders' Association protesting at the confusion caused by the decision of the Food Ministry to allow pork butchers to sell pork off the ration from next Sunday? The Association states:
We regret that a very confused situation has arisen. It is necessary to point out that only one shop in 180 of the butchers' shops in London trades as a pork butcher….

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member now seems to be conveying information instead of asking for it.

Mr. Thomas: With your forbearance and the consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, I was phrasing my question in the shortest possible manner. The London Retail Meat Traders' Association—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is exceeding the bounds of what is permissible in putting a supplementary question. Can he not get to his question and ask it? What is the question?

Mr. Thomas: The question is whether the Minister of Agriculture will consult his colleague the Minister of—

Mr. Baldwin: On a point of order. What has this supplementary question to do with the original Question? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member really ought to ask his supplementary question.

Mr. Thomas: I was asking my question.

Captain Orr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you accept a Motion, "That the Question be now put"?

Mr. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has occupied a lot of time—

Mr. Thomas: But Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.

Mr. Thomas: On a point of order. I am putting my question and on two occasions I have been interrupted by points of order. I now ask for the right which you, Mr. Speaker, extended to me, to put my question. I have been interrupted—

Mr. Speaker: I gave the hon. Member permission to ask his supplementary question and called him for that purpose—

Mr. Thomas: Well, I—

Mr. Speaker: I have not yet heard the question, and the hon. Member has occupied a great deal of time. If the hon. Member will promise to put his question in six words, I will call him.

Mr. Thomas: I agree with your condition, Mr. Speaker. I will accept your terms—provided, of course, that the first few words introducing the question do not count. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he make a statement about the statement of the London


Retail Meat Traders'Association on the statement of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: At last we have got the question, but now we have got it I must rule it out of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEA DEFENCE WORKS (WASTE MATERIALS)

Mr. MacColl: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet completed his consideration of the practicability of using coal and chemical refuse dumps for rebuilding sea walls; and what conclusion he has reached.

Sir T. Dugdale: In the course of their work along the East Coast, over boards have used any material which proved suitable in rebuilding the sea walls and which could be transported at reasonable cost. Slag from the steel works at Scunthorpe was used on the Lincolnshire coast; and ashes mixed with chalk were used along the North Kent coast. Experiments in the use of colliery waste proved unsuccessful. The use of this waste material is in any case severely restricted by the high cost of haulage from the source of supply to the coast.

Mr. MacColl: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that if he runs out of supplies he will find a very fine mixed variety in Widnes?

Oral Answers to Questions — CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Stokes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture on what basis of cost it was decided to make use of the Carlton House Terrace site as the new Foreign Office rather than have it developed as a commercial site for residential flats, hotels and offices, it being assumed the Nash front would not be materially altered in either case.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of order. How is it possible for the Minister of Agriculture to answer this Question?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) did not rise.

Mr. Bowles: My point is how can the Minister of Agriculture possibly be responsible for anything like the contents of this Question?

Mr. Speaker: Because he is a Commissioner of Crown Lands.

Mr. Bowles: I see.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLOUR BAR

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the Government's policy with regard to the colour bar; and whether he will instruct all Ministers to take action within their Ministerial and Departmental powers to prevent the operation and continuation of the colour bar.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): The laws and custom of this country upon this subject are well known, and I am advised there is no need for new instructions.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that I and, I think, most of my hon. Friends are rather disappointed with his reply and we would have expected him to be more forthcoming? Will he make a wider statement, at least as strong as some statements of his Ministers, in condemning this practice, which has shown itself on many occasions, unfortunately, in this country?

Mr. Beresford Craddock: If my right hon. Friend is to make a statement on the matter, will he bear in mind the interest of the white man occasionally?

Hon. Members: Shocking.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is no party issue but that it has already been a matter for discussion with some of his Departmental Ministers in the House and that the Minister of Education declines to withdraw recognition from private schools where a colour bar is practised?

The Prime Minister: I think I have answered the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Gower: On a point of order. Is this Question strictly accurate, because only recently, as reported in the Press, a coloured man coming to this country said all his countrymen liked to come to this


country because this is the only country in the world without a colour bar?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the question of colour bar has become a great factor in world affairs, and speeches, actions and deeds of Her Majesty's Government may have a tremendous effect on the future of the British Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly bear that and many other facts in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE OPENINGS OF PARLIAMENT (WESTMINSTER HALL)

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Prime Minister if he will move to appoint a Select Committee to join with a committee of the Lords to consider the desirability of arranging that future State Openings of Parliament should take place in Westminster Hall, as was done in former times.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, the conclusions reached by the Joint Committee of both Houses in 1901 still apply.

Mr. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend consider that one of the facts which that Committee took into account and to which it gave great weight was the doubtfulness of Speeches from the Throne being heard down the length of the Hall? Would he take into account the fact that that no longer applies? Will he also bear in mind the very strong reasons that obtain for holding this important State occasion in the Great Hall?

Mr. H. Morrison: Will the Prime Minister keep in mind that there is something to be said for this great occasion taking place in a warmish place rather than in a very cold hall?

The Prime Minister: These matters are under the constant consideration of the Departments and branches of the Government involved, and I am quite sure that the conversations which have occurred on the topic today will draw their attention to the matter again.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN MINISTERS CONFERENCE (BERLIN)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the failure of the four Foreign Ministers to reach an agreement at Berlin, he will now invite heads of States to a conference without a rigid agenda and without an array of officials and experts.

The Prime Minister: This Conference is as yet hardly ended. When it is concluded, sometime today, we must have a debate about it in this House after receiving a report from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I have no doubt that the topics mentioned by the hon. Member will find their place in the discussion.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the objection of the Prime Minister on 11th May to a conference attended by a horde of experts, did he agree to sending 70 to Berlin? Did he not prophesy that a horde of experts would be unsuccessful? Has his prophecy not proved true, and how far is he now prepared to return to his original idea?

The Prime Minister: I said that these matters may be discussed next week, and it will be certainly open to any hon. Member who catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, to put this aspect before the House. I have no reason to regret anything I have said, but I am bound to say I have a feeling that we have gained advantages out of what has occurred.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for next week?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 22ND FEBRUARY—We find it necessary to ask the House to consider a Time-table Motion for the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill.

Hon. Members: Resign!

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. There will be an occasion to debate this Motion next week.

Mr. Crookshank: This Bill is at present before a Standing Committee. The terms of the Motion will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow.

TUESDAY, 23RD FEBRUARY—Second Reading: British Industries Fair (Guarantees and Grants Bill.

Committee stage: Money Resolution.

Committee and remaining stages: Civil Defence (Electricity Undertakings) Bill.

Motions to approve: Draft Civil Defence (Police) Regulations, and similar Regulations for Scotland.

WEDNESDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY—Debate on the Berlin Conference, which will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

THURSDAY, 25TH FEBRUARY—Supply [4th Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed to take formally, and then proceed to the conclusion of the debate on the Berlin Conference.

FRIDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Attlee: I wish to put two points to the Lord Privy Seal. May I ask whether he has been able to do anything about providing a White Paper on the subject of the Berlin Conference? Secondly, what is the reason for this indecent haste to introduce a Guillotine Motion on a Bill which is of very great concern and which requires the very careful examination which, I understand, it is receiving in the Standing Committee?

Mr. Crookshank: The short answer to the second point is that the Bill is not making very much progress in Standing Committee, but the reasons will be amplified in the debate which will take place on Monday.
As regards the first point, Her Majesty's Government have now decided upon the issue of a White Paper. Perhaps I may say that I am sure the House will realise the difficulty involved in preparing this White Paper at short notice, since the Berlin Conference only finishes today, and my right hon. Friend will be back in London tomorrow. However, I can assure the House that every effort is being made to have the White Paper available by Monday evening, and at all events before the debate on Wednesday. Since I have been asked, I would say that it is hoped to include in it the full

text of all formal proposals made at Berlin and all the major speeches.

Mr. Attlee: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement about the provision of a White Paper, but I can assure him that we shall require a great deal of explanation, on Monday, of the reasons for the timetable Motion.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is treating the House with scant courtesy to put down tomorrow a time-table Motion for debate on Monday. We shall hardly have any time at all to consider it. [Laughter.] I do not know what the hon. Member is sniggering about. We shall have only one day. Furthermore, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that far more progress has been made upon this Bill than upon many other Bills in Standing Committee where no time-table has been applied? Does he realise that this Bill amends 20 Acts of Parliament and deals with the most complicated legislation ever to come before the House of Commons? Is this not an outrageous way to treat the House? Is it not obviously a device to prevent us from exposing what this Bill is—a landlords' ramp?

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the Prime Minister's personal guarantee at the opening of the Session that full opportunity would be given for the expression of all views on this subject, will he now instruct his right hon. Friend to withdraw the time-table Motion, because it is a breach of his own undertaking to the House?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not overhear it, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, in quite a loud voice, "No, Sir."

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask whether the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Bill has been postponed?

Mr. Crookshank: So far as next week is concerned, yes, Sir.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Leader of the House aware that his outrageous decision to introduce a time-table Motion is all the more outrageous because hon. Friends of his on the Standing Committee have asked hon. Friends of mine to expand


their case from time to time because insufficient time has been given to it?

Mrs. Braddock: As the Bill is wanted neither by the tenants nor by the property owners, would it not be advisable to chop its head off altogether?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go into the merits of a Motion which is not on the Order Paper.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member has a question relating to business for next week, we had better hear it.

Mr. Callaghan: I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the Leader of the House does not think it appropriate that he should reply to the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), why it is so necessary to put the time-table Motion on the Order Paper tomorrow for debate on Monday?

Mr. Crookshank: There will be plenty of time for Amendments to be put down by Monday, and then they can be called. I did not reply to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) because I did not think he expected me to; but I took note of the fact that he described the Bill as "a landlords' ramp" whereas the last time I heard him speak on the subject he called it "a mouldy turnip."

Mr. Bevan: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no conflict between those terms. Might I point out to him that hon. Members will not have the Motion in their possession until tomorrow, and that their only opportunity to consult together about what Amendments to put down will be tomorrow? That is rather short notice. Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider at least that aspect of the matter?

Mr. Crookshank: Tomorrow is a Parliamentary day, and I have to take note of that fact. I am fortified by the knowledge that this follows exactly the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevan: It is not the same Bill, though.

Mr. Crookshank: That does not matter; it is the same precedent.

Mr. Woodburn: Was any attempt made to obtain a voluntary time-table before it was decided to table a compulsory time-table? Is it the Government's intention to act in a dictatorial manner in relation to Guillotine Motions, or will the Government extend to the Opposition the courtesy of giving advance notice?

Mr. Crookshank: Such courtesies were extended. I do not think it wise to go into the arguments now;they are, perhaps, more appropriate for discussion on Monday.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would it not be much better than proceeding with such indecent baste to this Guillotine Motion if the Government were instead to take the Second Reading of the Industrial Organisation and Development Bill, which they originally proposed to take a fortnight ago, and about which, I understand, they are having some trouble on their own side of the House? [Hon. Members: "Answer!"] Could we at least be told what has happened to the Bill? Are the Government going to proceed with it? What is causing the delay?

Mr. Crookshank: It is not being proceeded with next week.

Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider dropping Monday's business, because the Minister in charge of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill has on no occasion complained of any filibustering or delay? My hon. Friends and I who are on the Committee are willing to meet in the afternoons and on additional days if need be so that the Bill, which to a very large extent affects old and poor persons, can be thoroughly discussed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members cannot go into the merits of the Motion now.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for discussion of a statement which appeared on the tape machine today referring to a "murderous attack" made upon "members of the Government" this morning, including the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, the


Home Secretary and Lord Leathers, a former Minister? The report states:
The figure of the Prime Minister has been in Madame Tussaud's since 1913. The same body has remained, but a new head has been made every five or six years. The head damaged today was a comparatively new one, but, fortunately, another head is in store and Sir Winston's figure will not have to be removed for treatment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That seems to be very remote from the business for next week.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — COTTON BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

3.47 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
We have reached the final stages of this Bill, and I am sure everyone will agree that we have been through it very thoroughly in all its democratic processes, including 10 sittings of the Standing Committee and two full days on the Floor of the House. In the process we have got to know each other rather better, and some of us have even got to know the Bill rather better, than when we started.
I think it is right, and it is certainly in order, to look at the Bill and consider it as it has emerged from its Committee and Report stages. At this stage a Bill is not simply the work of a party but the work of the hon. Members on all sides of the House of Commons who have considered it. I hope that it will be in that light that we shall conduct the debate.
The Bill does two things. First of all, it deals with the interim position which exists between now and when the Commission is wound up; that is to say, it deals with a situation in which cotton is bought partly on private and partly on public account. Secondly, it makes provision for the winding up in due course of the Raw Cotton Commission.
Whatever else can be said about the Bill in its present form, everyone will agree that it has not been embarked upon recklessly or without study. It follows two years of comprehensive study of raw cotton problems in every section of the trade, and it represents the logical conclusion of the two Reports of the Hopkins Committees.
In essence, the problem which the Bill we now have before us has to meet is not whether cotton purchasing should go on as at present or not. Essentially, the problem is whether we should go back to the establishment of a virtually complete monopoly of cotton buying, or whether we should go forward to a free market. The Government have decided


upon this latter and more adventurous course.
I recognise that there are many hon. Members opposite who take the view that that was the wrong decision, and, on other stages of the Bill, they have argued that view forcibly and fully. For our part, we believe it to be the right decision, and we believe that that decision represents the measure of our growing economic strength.
What, as I understand, we have to discuss today, within the confines of the Measure as we now find it, is the mechanics of the decision to go forward. In doing so, may I say that, whatever differences may exist between us as to the larger issues of policy, I am sure we share one common wish. That is that we should do everything we can to safeguard and serve the interests of the men and women who work in this great cotton textile industry.
The first thing I would say is that it would be very hard to advance the policy laid down in this Bill, or indeed any other policy, without the loyal and helpful co-operation of the Raw Cotton Commission itself. I think that the country and the House of Commons can be grateful to the Commission and the men who work in it for the contribution they have made, and particularly the contribution which they are making and can make towards a smooth transition from the existing method of buying cotton over to the new methods when they are introduced.
Next, a word about the new system arising under this Bill. Its success will depend not simply upon the terms of the Bill as it leaves this House. It will depend upon the skill, the vigour and resource of the men who work these various procedures, and it will be something of a challenge to the enterprise that we can show.
I know that, on this subject, there are many questions which vex the minds of hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House, questions like the type of cover that can be provided—on which I believe that as good, and probably better, cover will be provided in this country as in any other country in the world—questions about the stock position in the industry, and questions about the transitional

arrangements that will have to be made. Many of these matters are probably inappropriate for detailed discussion on the provisions of this Bill, but we are not oblivious to them. I am myself in constant contact with the spinners, the Raw Cotton Commission and the Liverpool Cotton Association in all these matters, and I am not unduly disturbed by any of these problems.
To tell the truth, there is no moment in time when any industry, let alone an industry as big and complex at the cotton industry, is enjoying complete and absolute calm. There are always events in one part of the world or another, something always in glut or in short supply, and markets are in a constant state of disturbance, as anybody who has ever dealt with them well knows. But I know of no difficulty, technical or practical, which looks as if it will be an insurmountable obstacle to carrying out the provisions of the Bill.
The first part of the Bill, in essence, puts the Raw Cotton Commission into the position of a merchant; that is to say, it takes away from it all the obligations which were imposed upon it on the assumption that it was a monopoly, and they are taken away because the Raw Cotton Commission no longer is a monopoly. Indeed, it has not been a monopoly for quite a considerable time, and it has not been a monopoly because everybody in the industry is agreed that it should not be a monopoly.
That has been the case for more than two years. Those obligations are removed, and, in their place, there are retained powers to deal in cotton and to serve, as the Commission must serve, the existing contractors-in—those people who, on 1st September, 1953, agreed for the new cotton year that they would buy their cotton through the Raw Cotton Commission.
The second part of the Bill deals with the winding-up of the Raw Cotton Commission, and leaves the way open for the reopening of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. Opinions differ in the House as to whether that is a wise thing to do, but I think it is worth remembering the repute and esteem in which the great markets of the United Kingdom are held abroad. The world thinks of us as a nation of traders, who live by commerce and exchange, and it regards this new


prospect of the opening of the great and traditional market for cotton as an indication of our growing strength.
What matters now is not any doctrinal differences which may exist between any of us here. What matters to us, to the United Kingdom, and to Lancashire especially, is that every possible effort should be made to see that these new arrangements work well and smoothly, and none of us must spare any effort to see that that is brought about.
To do it requires a great deal of co-operation between the spinners, the merchants, the men who work in the industry and, not least, the banks who provide the finance. In this House, our part has been to test in debate the proposals of the Government. They have been fully debated and fully analysed, and this Bill, like any other Bill which goes through the House of Commons procedure, is a better Bill at the end than it was at the beginning, because that is the purpose of our Committee and Report stages.
We have examined the various suggestions that have been put forward. We have made certain alterations, notably one on compensation which the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) mentioned the other night. We have done that, and the Bill in its final or near final form is before us now. It is a Bill which enables us to carry on smoothly and effectively with the Raw Cotton Commission during this interim period. It provides machinery whereby the Government's general policy of moving forward to a free market with the historical futures arrangements operating, can be implemented. In commending the Bill for Third Reading, I think I can say that it is our common wish that there should be good fortune in the future for all those, be they merchants, spinners or workers, who operate in the great Lancashire textile industry.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The President of the Board of Trade began his speech by saying that we had been through the Bill. He was quite correct in speaking for himself, because he has "been through it"on this Bill during the last few weeks. I will not say that he has been through the mill because that is a building which he gives as wide a berth as possible. He has been subjected

to a very careful and constructive attack on the proposals that he has put before us.
He said one thing which we all welcome and which was that we all wished for the welfare and prosperity of those engaged in the industry. We welcome the belated interest in the prosperity of the cotton industry which the right hon. Gentleman has shown. It is a pity that he had to deal against the prosperity of the cotton industry the three very telling blows that we have discussed in the last few days, before he could come, on the Third Reading, and tell us how concerned he is about its prosperity.
We were also impressed just now when he told us that he was in touch with Liverpool, because we spent some hours yesterday afternoon gaining the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was not in touch with Liverpool at all. However, as he told us, what is now appropriate is not the range of wider subjects that we have been debating in the last few weeks, but what is in the Bill itself, what has emerged from the previous stages of our examination of it.
The right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that the Bill was not the work of one party. I hope that he will not hold us in any way responsible for an extremely bad Bill. There have been one or two Amendments which, as he knows, were made as the result of our proposals, and in order that the respective shares of blame can be put in their proper perspective I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the changes in the Bill that are due to us are the replacement of the word "may" by "shall" in Clause 3 and, secondly, the removal of the entirely redundant and meaningless phrase "on, before or after 1st September, 1953."Those are the only changes for which we can take responsibility, but it has been due to the energy of my hon. Friends that the President of the Board of Trade has made other Amendments.
Let me turn to the Bill as it has emerged from its previous stages. It is a short Bill of six Clauses, as we all know by now. The strange thing is that so much harm can be done by so short a Bill. The last two Clauses are purely consequential, and deal with the financial and other machinery. The real substance of the Bill is contained in the first four Clauses, which took most of our time


on the Standing Committee. The first two Clauses are those which remove the obligations which were resting on the Raw Cotton Commission, and which are still today the legal obligations on the Commission under the 1947 Act.
The President approaches those two Clauses rather with an air of injured innocence. He is rather surprised when we criticise them. His argument is that when he found the Raw Cotton Commission in its dying state it was right that he should come to its rescue by removing some of the obligations resting on it. Those obligations were appropriate to it in its monopoly days but were no longer appropriate today. That was the argument that we had from the right hon. Gentleman.
In fact, he made an almost sentimental appeal about these two Clauses. He gave the impression that he is the 20th Century Good Samaritan, who happened to be going through Liverpool when he came across the bleeding body of the Raw Cotton Commission, which had been savagely attacked. The President bound up its wounds and, because of its weak state, relieved it of its burdens and left it to die with some show of dignity and happiness.
He then went further and provided it, as did his predecessor of Biblical days, with a small amount of money to ease out its last few days, in the form of these compensation payments. He said, "Whatsoever more is needed I will repay when I come again," no doubt in the form of further retrospective legislation that he will want the House to pass. All in all, he made a very moving appeal about what he had done, but he did not say that the thieves who made the attack were really the right hon. Gentleman himself and his noble Friend the Minister of Materials.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the moral of the Biblical Good Samaritan story would have been lost if the thief who beat up the suffering man had been found to be the Good Samaritan himself. Thus, the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman on those two Clauses loses much of its effect. I do not intend to say very much about those first two Clauses. I do not entirely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have in the present or later to relieve

the Raw Cotton Commission of some of its burdens. But it is right for the Minister to make clear that it was he who cut its throat.
Last night the Minister used the phrase that this was due to the work of the Hopkins Committee. He said, in so many words, and that idea was contained in some of the fitful correspondence about the Bill that has been appearing in the "Manchester Guardian." I was astonished to see the suggestion from the chairman of the Manchester Cotton Exchange that it was not the Government that had done this, in the fullest consultation, but was the result of the work of the first and second Hopkins Committees. I do not think that hon. Members will want to maintain that the Committee, whose Report we debated last year, suggested anything about the winding up of the Raw Cotton Commission. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will accept full responsibility for bringing the Raw Cotton Commission to an end.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Certainly. The Government are very proud of the Bill. What the Hopkins Committee did—it is as well to get this matter into perspective—was to end effectively the monopoly position of the Raw Cotton Commission. It was as a result of their influence that the monopoly position ended.

Mr. Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to preach this new doctrine let me remind him—it would be out of order if I followed him too far—that as a responsible Minister he cannot put the blame upon an advisory committee. The Hopkins Committee had no power to alter the situation under the Act. It was done by the Raw Cotton Commission, and by the agreement made after the right hon. Gentleman had received the Report of the Hopkins Committee. We can now see the purpose of the Hopkins Committee, of whose Report the right hon. Gentleman now claims to be so proud. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be so proud of his Bill.
Clause 2 changes the law as regards the ability of members of the Raw Cotton Commission to take on work within six months of leaving its service. We have debated that at a previous stage and I do not propose to say anything more about it tonight. But, once again, I want to draw the attention of the House to the


very serious retrospective legislation which, despite the President's fair words last night to us on this side of the House, can only mean that he has connived at, if not inspired, illegal operations on the part of the Commission, and is now seeking retrospective validation of what it has been doing.
With regard to the statistical part of Clause 2 the President, once again, has been outpaced by the Raw Cotton Commission. Long before the Bill had a chance of seeing the Statute Book the Commission had anticipated the decision of the House and sacked the statistical staff. I hope that when hon. Members are voting they will recognise that, however serious the constitutional implications of that item are, the vote is somewhat academic.
Clause 3 is easily the best part of the Bill, because it provides compensation not only for those who will be made redundant, but also for those who were made redundant even before the Government came to any decision at all about the abolition of the Commission. In fact, this stems from the debate last July when we first asked the President to compensate those who had become redundant as a result of the diminution in the Commission's work.
Clause 4, as we all know, is the really important one. The President is very fortunate indeed that we are debating it at all. He knows that it would have been relatively easy, at an early stage, to have had this Clause taken out of the Bill. But the Bill is here now and Clause 4 is still with us. This Clause does the greatest damage to Lancashire because it provides that the President and the Minister of Materials, if at any time they are satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, can bring an order before the House providing for the dissolution of the Raw Cotton Commission.
Our attempts to help him define what is in the public interest have been rejected, so that it would be out of order for me now to attempt to say what should have been in the Bill. I hope, however, that the President will realise that the Bill still requires him to approach this subject with an open mind; that it enables him to make the order dissolving the Commission only if he and the Minister of Materials are satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do. For that

reason we are very worried about the many occasions on which he has told us that he, and his colleague the Minister of Materials, will be moved with the feeling that it is then in the public interest on or about 31st August of this year. He is able to forecast that, at that time, it will be in the public interest.
Clause 4—which really is the Bill—presents a series of dangers to Lancashire and to the welfare of its great cotton industry about which he spoke a few moments ago. I want briefly to summarise the effect of this part of the Bill. It means, first, a real danger to Lancashire's continuing supplies of raw material. There may be that danger, for instance, if at any time there is a world famine of raw cotton, such as we have seen more than once since the end of the war. We saw it in 1950–51, after Korea, when the American Government imposed unilateral export restrictions.
It was only because of the activities of the Commission that the industry was able to get through that year. If the Commission had not bought supplies wherever it could throughout the non-dollar world—the Colonial Territories and elsewhere—and if it had not eked out supplies fairly among all the mills requiring them, there would have been severe unemployment in Lancashire.
Those days might come again. I trust that we have moved from the danger of a world cotton famine but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there is always the danger of a disturbance of markets somewhere. Should we face a shortage of cotton, or of particular growths, Lancashire's ability to meet the situation will be greatly weakened by Clause 4. What is much more likely is that the cotton will be there—perhaps in surplus supplies—but that this country will not have the dollars to buy it.
Whatever the reason for a prospective shortage of cotton, my first attack on the Clause is that it endangers Lancashire's supplies and thereby endangers her ability to maintain employment. It is for that reason that the organised trade unions of the cotton industry have warned the President of the danger of unemployment arising from what they call "this reckless gamble," and have said that a very serious view will be taken should that happen.
As a result of Clause 4 there is a serious danger to the maintenance of colonial supplies. I do not intend to go over yesterday's arguments, but it is obvious to anyone who studies the Bill that neither we nor the Colonial Territories can hope to maintain in this country the same market, the same continuity of marketing arrangements under the private futures market as were enjoyed under the Raw Cotton Commission.
We have given many figures to the House about the development of colonial supplies. We know that that development has been of vast importance in helping the Colonies to diversify economies very often over-dependent on a single group or form of economic activity. We know that these developments have helped to raise living standards in those territories. They have been important also to Lancashire. By this Clause we believe that the President is throwing away all that has been built up in the last 15 years in the development of Empire cotton.
It is a very serious reflection upon this party—which is proud of this Bill, which so often in the past has posed before the country as the party of the Commonwealth, of Commonwealth development, of Empire trade and all the rest of it—that because of its slavish following of doctrines of private enterprise, and its newly acquired taste for a rather bogus form of Cobdenism, it is willing to cast aside everything done in the past few years to develop trade within the Commonwealth.
Clause 4 also means that there will be a dangerous increase in the cotton industry's dependence on the United States. Again, I do not need to give the reasons for this. The form of the futures contract likely to be in force for some time, the tie-ups which we know exist between Liverpool and the United States, the danger that American capital is going to settle in the Liverpool cotton market—all these things are bound to increase the dependence of Lancashire on American sources of supply.
We know what that will mean if there is a shortage of dollars. There will be a sudden imposition of quotas by the Government, and panic will be

inevitable. It will mean the breakdown of the cotton futures market, because that market cannot function against a background of Government quotas or currency restrictions. So far from the free cotton market earning the admiration of the world, as the President said, the result will be weakened world confidence in our handling of cotton affairs and in the Liverpool cotton market.
This will mean a shortage of cotton. Mills will stop because of their inability to get cotton from the Sudan, Uganda and the other areas about which we talked yesterday, because those areas, in self-protection, will have had to seek markets outside this country. Then there is the danger, which we see developing even while the Raw Cotton Commission is still in being, of inadequate stocks being available in Lancashire. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and many other hon. Members on this side of the House have referred to the stocks of Uganda, Sudanese and Egyptian cotton available in this country.
We have produced figures for the benefit of the President—who had not seen them before—showing that stocks of raw cotton in this country have been going down progressively for some time. The latest figures show that our stocks are well below 200,000 tons, which is almost the lowest figure in recorded history, in spite of the fact that that figure includes stocks held by the Raw Cotton Commission. Once that Commission is dissolved, and the stocks have been run down and disposed of to traders or "spivs," the President will be faced with a situation in which almost no raw cotton stocks will be available, and the whole trade will be living on the supplies of cotton ex-ship. If that happens, and there is any delay or emergency, particularly a military emergency, we shall be in a very serious position.
I do not need to refer to the financial dangers of this Bill; they have been outlined before. Many mills which are short of finance will now have to borrow money in order to buy raw cotton because, up till this moment, the Commission has been the financing agent for holding stocks. Cases have been mentioned of many mills which have been setting aside money for the purpose of re-equipping their industry. That is an urgent priority


in Lancashire. They will now have to use some or all of that money—perhaps even more than they now have—for the purpose of holding such stocks as they require. They have been told clearly and unequivocally by the Liverpool Cotton Association that it will no longer hold stocks for Lancashire, except where individual mills ask them to hold it and pay a special additional premium for doing so.
The great service rendered by the Commission, of holding stocks adequate in quantity and sufficiently wide ranging in growth and quality to meet all the requirements of Lancashire, is coming to an end. All this is being done to satisfy the political doctrines and ideology of the party opposite, and the promise so unwisely given by the Prime Minister to the Liverpool cotton interests in October, 1951.
In the last part of my summary of criticisms of Clause 4 I shall not repeat all that has been said about quality. In the minds of the operatives the Raw Cotton Commission has come to be identified with good quality cotton, whereas, in their memories of pre-war days, the Liverpool Cotton Market—whatever reputation it held abroad—was identified with cotton of variable and sometimes bad quality. Now that so much of Lancashire has to live on cotton supplies ex-ship there is a very serious danger that when the cotton comes off the ships it will not be what the mill owners want. Whatever provision there may be for compensation, it does not provide the cotton, and that means that export orders, about which the Minister of State is always making speeches, will be endangered or lost.
The Government have chosen this moment of time to introduce this new and highly disruptive factor in the life of the Lancashire cotton industry. It would be bad enough if it were being done on its own, but we know that it is being done at a time when two other grave blows are being delivered. The industry is facing the future with very great uncertainty. Not long ago Sir Thomas Barlow, the Chairman of the District Bank—not the hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) but Sir Thomas Barlow, who knows what he is talking about—said that in many ways we were facing a situation not unlike that immediately before the slump of

1951–52, from the point of view of export orders and all the rest. At this moment the President introduces this Bill and this policy.

Mr. William Shepherd: Can we have the considered opinion of the right hon. Gentleman? Does he think that the industry is facing a situation similar to that which it faced prior to the 1951 slump?

Mr. Wilson: I know perfectly well that if I were to answer that question by saying "No," the hon. Member would say, "What is the argument?" and if I were to say, "Yes," and there were a slump in the next few years, every time that slump was mentioned I should be given credit for having precipitated it, in the same way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has always been given credit—to which he does not aspire—for having caused the slump of 1951. It is impossible for anyone to say what will be the position. It would be irresponsible for anyone to say that the Lancashire cotton industry will go into a slump this year, or to say anything of the kind.
What I do say—and in this I echo the views of an industrialist whom the hon. Gentleman will respect—is that the Lancashire cotton industry is facing a situation of great uncertainty, unsettlement and danger, and it is up to us all, on both sides of the House, and particularly the Government, to give it all the help we can in meeting that situation. But the Government, with the Japanese Trade Agreement, the decision about Purchase Tax and this Bill, are making life as difficult as they possibly can for the industry.
It is clear that whatever are the prospects for 1954 it will be a year of highly competitive trading in world markets, particularly textile markets. We know that the Canadian textile industry is facing a degree of depression such as it has not known for 15 years; we know that many mills in the United States are on short-time, and we know the situation in Japan. The President would be the first to admit that the Lancashire textile industry, this year, is facing a highly competitive situation in world markets. The "Manchester Guardian" says:
International trade in cotton goods must be expected in future to be greatly influenced by the respective prices at which the various com-


peting countries have been able to obtain their raw materials. It seems possible that Lancashire, as a result of the disturbance which must inevitably be caused by the cessation of the Raw Cotton Commission's operations on August 31st, will be at some disadvantage—at any rate during the current year—in this respect. This is a point which will have to be watched very carefully.
If the President were honest he would not disagree that he is introducing this new and disruptive factor into the situation, and that Lancashire will be at a comparative disadvantage with other countries as a result of this transition—I will not say return to private buying, because he and I have different views about this—from the Raw Cotton Commission to the private futures market.

Mr. Thorneycroft: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilson: The President is very confident. He does not agree with the expert views printed in the "Manchester Guardian." He may laugh at the "Manchester Guardian," but it knows a great deal more about the cotton industry than he does. He is sufficiently happy in his doctrinaire views to be able to laugh at the warnings being circulated in Manchester. The Government are guilty of introducing this reckless gamble into the affairs of the industry.
There have been many discussions about the relative merits of private buying and centralised buying as a means of supplying the industry with its raw materials. I do not want to go into those somewhat theoretical arguments this afternoon, but there is one thing of which we on this side of the House, at any rate, are certain: whatever the theoretical merits of private buying, however much it may have achieved in the years before 1914 when world conditions were very different, private buying of raw cotton is a fair weather ship. It is something which can succeed when all is set fair in world economic affairs.
But with the very stormy situation which we face in economic affairs today and the very uncertain future surrounding our material supplies and the Lancashire industry generally, I think the President's action in introducing the Bill, then failing to withdraw it, in pushing on with it and in commending it to the House this afternoon, is a very grave disturbance not only to the textile industry of Lancashire but to the economic position of the country.

4.32 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Wentworth Schofield: Throughout the progress of the debates on this Bill, both in Committee and on Second Reading, fears were expressed, particularly by hon. Members opposite, about certain dangers which were likely to arise as a result of the passing of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) referred today to the low state of the total stocks of cotton in the country at present. Would he not agree that perhaps the fact that they are lower today has been brought about because of the fear of falling prices of cotton? When prices are tending to fall, traders are not likely to build up large stocks in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the buying of cotton by private buyers as a fair weather ship which succeeds only in fair weather. I would point out to him that the simile is more applicable to bulk buying than to private buying. In a bull market, when prices are rising all the time, bulk buying is bound to succeed. It begins to fail only when prices start to fall. Then we see large losses, such as the £25 million losses which we have seen in the last two years, largely because of falling prices.
One of the fears which has been expressed throughout the debate is the danger to the small man, as he has been described, in the possibility that he will be unable to finance his stocks of cotton. I do not know what is meant by the small man in the cotton spinning industry. We cannot refer to the cotton spinner as a small man as if he were a small shopkeeper. Most of the cotton spinning mills today would cost between £1 million and £2 million to replace and finance. Such a man is not a small man.
These are quite considerable enterprises. Many of the cotton mills which have been referred to as the single units have liquid reserves in cash of more per spindle than the combines themselves, and I am quite sure that they will have very little difficulty in financing their normal requirements of raw cotton. I am not as concerned about this as are many hon. Members opposite, because I believe that it can be done.
Another fear which has been expressed, particularly by hon. Members opposite but also by some of my hon. Friends, is the possible effect of the passage of the


Bill on the future use of colonial cotton. Personally, I believe that as long as the price of colonial cotton is comparable, Lancashire spinners will continue to use it. I believe that the danger of it not being used is very remote.
Be that as it may, I must confess that at the beginning, when it was first announced that the futures contract to be operated in the new Liverpool futures market would be based on a pure American contract, I also held certain fears and, together with cotton spinning interests, I took part in very long discussions with the Liverpool Cotton Association on this very point. The Liverpool Cotton Association, upon whom will fall the responsibility of making the futures market work, is quite well aware of the desire which is held by many spinners in Lancashire that colonial cottons of equivalent grade and staple to the standard set down—that is, the middling American standard which is the basis of the pure American contract—should be tenderable against that contract. They have been made fully aware of the views of many spinners that that should be so.
The members of the Liverpool Cotton Association, who are to be responsible for the proper functioning of the Liverpool futures market, hold the view that in the initial stages of getting the market going, at any rate, the futures contract should be as simple as possible and should have no more complications than are necessary. Both cotton spinning trade leaders and the Empire cotton growing corporation have agreed on that point. To get it going, they have agreed to have this pure American contract—on condition that within 12 months the whole question of making either a separate contract or a mixed contract, but, at any rate, of allowing colonial cotton of equivalent grade and staple to be tenderable against that contract, should be discussed. The condition is that either this provision should be introduced or at least should be very thoroughly re-examined within 12 months. An assurance has been given by the President of the Liverpool Cotton Association that that will be done, and I think we can rely on that promise.
As the responsibility for making the market work successfully must fall upon the Liverpool Cotton Association, I think it would be wrong for the Government at this point to lay down rules and con-

ditions under which the market should work. We must, however, bear in mind that the more colonial cotton is grown and then used in this country, the greater will be the purchasing power of the colonies concerned. It stands to reason that the greater the amount of raw material produced by the colonies and sold to this country, the greater will be the amount of manufactured goods they will take from us.
I have already said that I recognise that it would be wrong for Parliament to try to impose upon the Liverpool Cotton Association at this time the conditions under which the market should open and the conditions of the contract, but I hope the President will make known to the Liverpool authorities the views which have been expressed on both sides of the House and the concern which has been felt by hon. Members on this point, because I believe it is very important that sooner or later we should recognise those cottons as tenderable against the American variety.
At the same time, I want to make it clear that the considered opinion, at least of the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners, which is regarded generally as the mouthpiece of the cotton spinning employers, is that the Government have acted wisely in introducing the Bill.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: The President of the Board of Trade based this gamble that the Government are taking on what he called our growing economic strength. While we are all pleased to see British industry prospering, and to see efforts made to pull the country through, we are deeply conscious of the very narrow margins on which we work at present. Anyone who gives the impression that there is great and growing economic strength which can be played with is wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had been in touch with the spinners and the Raw Cotton Commission. Apparently nothing that they had told him has given him any cause for anxiety. He is about the only person with responsibility in the Lancashire cotton industry who does not feel a deep anxiety for the future. We are bringing back into being an old system which might have worked very well when we were a rich nation with great resources and power. It is


not a system which, in our opinion, is suitable to deal with our present difficulties.
This is quite a different world from that of 1940, when the Liverpool Cotton Exchange went out of existence. It went out of existence voluntarily, because it felt that it could not face the anxieties of the situation. There was brought into being the system which used the economic strength of the nation to get for this great industry its natural raw material. The nation undertook to use its vast power, strength and organising authority to supply the raw material for this industry. Deep in our hearts we all have great anxiety for the future of the industry.
Let us consider what we are doing in this Bill. We are handing over the future of the industry to a body which has no resources comparable to those of the Commission. The Commission uses and is the custodian of the wealth, the power and the economic organising ability of the whole nation. But the Liverpool Cotton Exchange is not arranged on that basis. It has no responsibility to the nation. The responsibility goes to people who have one motive, and one only, and that is private profit. At the moment, when the anxieties for the future are so serious, this is a wrong action to take.
This is a peculiar Bill. It is a permissive Measure. Ultimately, even after we have passed it, the President himself has to be convinced that it is in the public interest to take the final and irrevocable step. I ask him, and all those who are connected with the matter, to give the most careful consideration before a decision is finally taken to abolish the Commission.
Much has been said during our debates about the Commonwealth position. Over a long number of years we have built up a new source of supply which is of greater importance today than ever before. We have now what looks like a dollar shortage which will last for a considerable time. It is wrong to take any action, such as that which the Government are taking, which jeopardises this great source of supply which has been built up so painfully but so successfully over a long period of years.
The hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield) spoke of his anxieties. Listening to him,

knowing that he is a supporter of the Government, and considering what he has to say, it is clear that he has grave doubts about the wisdom of this step and its effect upon the Commonwealth. A party which has prided itself upon its outlook on the Commonwealth should surely give careful consideration—last-minute consideration—before they take a step which will bring us into difficulty.
There is a responsibility on the nation for our great industries. It is a responsibility which perhaps did not exist before the war, for today we work on a very narrow margin. I can imagine nothing more necessary to any industry than that its source of raw material should be secure. All those actively working in industry, whether employers or employees, would feel more secure if they knew that supplies of raw material were safe.
It is a wrong move to go back to a body which has no responsibility to the nation but which operates purely for private profit. The President of the Board of Trade has said that he has the support of the industry for this move. It does not seem to me that he has anything like solid support even among the employers. I stress something which the Government seem to forget, though it certainly is my opinion and I think it is accepted generally. The most important section of any industry is the people who work in it. The cotton workers have clearly indicated that they consider it against the interests of the industry, against their interests and those of the nation, that this step should be taken.
It is unusual, on the Third Reading, to be able to plead that the step which is contemplated in the Bill should not be taken, but this Bill is so constructed that, even after it is passed, the Government can refrain from taking the final step. That shows that there may be doubts among the people who brought it in. I appeal to them to have another look at the matter. We know that the Government are capable of changing their mind. They are capable of repudiating the promises they made before the General Election. They have repudiated at least half a dozen; I should be out of order if I enumerated them. They could with great benefit to the nation repudiate this promise which the Prime Minister made that the Liverpool Cotton Exchange would be reopened. I appeal to them to do so.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) assumes that the Bill does much more than, in fact, it does. We shall not be turning the cotton industry over to the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. No one would look into the industry and say that it is free from a great deal of supervision. For example, we have the Cotton Board, which still retains its responsibility to the industry. Even when the Exchange is established it will still be subject to the control of the Bank of England in certain respects.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Cotton Board has any supervisory control over the Liverpool Cotton Association, or the Exchange?

Mr. Shepherd: I did not say that, and I usually say what I intend to say.
On the other point made by the hon. Member for Eccles, I would say that I am not much moved on this occasion by the fact that certain trade unions are against the Bill. I have already expressed the view that we cannot expect people to run businesses if their commercial judgment—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Shepherd: As I was saying before that interruption, the commercial judgment of the people in the industry must receive prior consideration in deciding the manner in which cotton is to be bought. Much as I respect the trade union element of the cotton and textile industry, I do not think that we should take note of their views in preference to the views of the majority of the people concerned in running the industry.
We have had a lengthy discussion on the Floor of the House and upstairs—in my view, too lengthy a discussion upstairs. I am not at all satisfied that the methods by which we discuss Bills upstairs, and particularly this one, contribute to the best interests of the country or of the House. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) tried to give the impression the other day that not a minute had been wasted. If anybody harbours that fond illusion, I ask

him to look at the record of what happened.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? The hon. Member has suggested that the debates upstairs were conducted in a disorderly fashion and that, therefore, the Chairman was not carrying out his duty efficiently or in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to make such reflections?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I did not understand the hon. Member to say that. In any case, I am not responsible for what happens upstairs.

Mr. Shepherd: I am sure it was clear that I did not for a moment suggest that the debates were disorderly. All I said was that they were of such a length as neither to reflect credit on this assembly nor to serve the interests of the industry. I am not saying this in a partisan spirit.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is clear, at any rate, that the proceedings upstairs attracted the attention of more Lancashire Conservative Members that the hon. Member is succeeding in doing this afternoon. If the hon. Gentleman is going to make the accusation that time was wasted upstairs, I hope he will not in any way mislead the House. I hope he will draw attention to two speeches upstairs which we all realised were made for one purpose only; one made by the President of the Board of Trade and the other by the hon. Member for Garston (Sir V. Raikes) to keep the debate going long enough to enable Members who had been attending another Committee to come in and vote.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On the Third Reading we do not discuss what happened upstairs.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not propose to do that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would merely say, in passing, that I would find it difficult to attach a purpose to many of the other speeches that we heard upstairs.
We had lengthy discussions and, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, we are proud of this Bill. It is no petulant reversal of what the Socialist Party did a few years ago. It is an act of faith. We believe in it. We believe that the Bill will work, and we are quite confident that it will serve the interests of the industry.
The right hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had murdered the Raw Cotton Commission. He did nothing of the kind. This was a case of suicide. As soon as the Commission decided that it was no longer possible to continue on the basis of averaging out prices, and started to act on replacement, the whole reason for the existence of the Commission faded away. It was, therefore, virtually a suicide case. A little later, perhaps, the dying body was finally dispatched by the decision of the industrialists in Lancashire to buy most of their cotton outside the Commission, but it would not be true to say that my right hon. Friend in any way slew this Commission. It was definitely a case of suicide.
This afternoon and in Committee upstairs there has been an air of gloom. Since he ceased to be President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Huyton believes that the industry of the country is going to pieces, and that doom, destruction and disaster are everywhere because he is no longer at the Board of Trade.

Mr. H. Wilson: Exports are going down, anyway.

Mr. Shepherd: A good deal of the time upstairs was spent in trying to talk the United States into a depression. It seems that there is no gleam of hope for anybody. We on this side of the House do not take that view. There are really no solid grounds for excessive pessimism in industry generally or in this particular industry.
I want to deal with one or two doubts that have arisen as a result of the Bill and which some hon. Members feel adversely affect the industry. The first one has already received some attention, and I do not want to say much about it. That is the question how far the operation of the Bill will affect the sales and growth of Empire cotton. I am satisfied that it will not affect the use of these growths in this country. A strong market exists for Empire growths. Empire growers of cotton are not weaklings; they are in a strong position.
One hon. Member said that as a consequence of the Bill they will lose their markets. But will they? Who is better able to face an adverse situation than the

growers of Empire cotton? Almost every Empire cotton board has not only sold its cotton at the prevailing world prices, but has also accumulated a substantial reserve as well. The Empire cotton boards are certainly no weaklings. Those who grow cotton in the Colonial Empire can draw a good deal of satisfaction from what has been said in this and previous debates.
We on both sides of the House are determined that the acreage of colonial cotton shall not only be maintained, but increased. As I said here last night, if after the expiry of these long-term contracts it is found that Empire cotton cannot be readily sold, or if it is facing an adverse situation, I am certain that the Government of the day, whether a Government of the party opposite or a Conservative Government, will take such action as it has at its disposal to put that situation right. I am satisfied that neither party wants to see any deterioration.

Mr. Proctor: Would the hon. Gentleman rule out the possibility of bulk purchase and long-term contracts?

Mr. Shepherd: By no means. I am not at all doctrinaire on the question of bulk purchase or even long-term contracts. If we feel that the only way to maintain and increase the acreage of colonial cotton is by long-term contracts or bulk purchase, by all means let us use those methods. All I am concerned with is that at present there does not appear to be any danger, as a result of the operation of this Bill, of any reduction in colonial acreage, and there is a reasonable chance for those growing cotton in the Colonial Empire to extend still further the hold which they have had in the last 10 or 15 years in the business.
The second point of doubt is on the question of stocks. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield) has dealt adequately with the illusion that members of firms in Lancashire are poor people. It is not true. In all this gloom let me say that, apart from the period before 1913, I do not know any time in the history of the textile industry when the financial position of those firms has been so sound. There is really no ground for believing that they will have financial hardship imposed upon them. They are using the


normal method of procuring raw materials, and I feel that there is no real danger on the stock position.
Hon. Members opposite create doubts in my mind about the validity of their fears. I remember that on one occasion an hon. Member opposite said he was very much afraid that there would be no stocks at all, and another hon. Member opposite said that he did not think there would be enough room to put them. They really cannot have it both ways.
Stocks do not exist in private hands today, and there is a very good reason why they should not. The Raw Cotton Commission is liable to lose vast sums of money on its sales; and, with a fairly uncertain position in terms of cotton prices and with inadequate cover for stockholding by merchants, it is obvious that there cannot be any serious holding of stocks until this Bill is passed. That is why I am most anxious for my right hon. Friend to get on with this job as quickly as possible, because we want to see stocks established.
I was rather disconcerted by some of the remarks made by hon. Members opposite and the fears expressed. One would think from the speeches made by some hon. Members on the score of marketing that we were rather puerile and no good at marketing. It is the skill of British merchants which has made this country invaluable to the foreign exchange fund today. It has a reputation which is to my mind unequalled. Are hon. Members opposite telling the House that the skill of our people, admired all over the world, is not equal to providing supplies of cotton for the spinners in Lancashire? That is a most absurd allegation. I am sure that they do not really mean it.
Another objection that hon. Members opposite have to this Bill is on the question of quality. The quality of the cotton, so hon. Members opposite say, has been very good lately and was very bad before the war, and they think that it is going to be bad again. That is the real point which concerns the workers in the industry. The method of payment of wages and the quality of the cotton are a very critical factor so far as the workers are concerned. Let us look at this allegation.
I was listening to a complaint from workers about cotton purchases by the Raw Cotton Commission not so very long ago, and I think I am right in saying there were official complaints by the unions concerned some years ago. I do not blame the Raw Cotton Commission for that, because it was taking 25 per cent. of the supplies, and beggars cannot be choosers. It probably was not its fault. Also it is not fair, in the same way, to compare the cotton purchases before the war with what is likely to be purchased under the new régime.
Why was it that we had in the Lancashire cotton industry between the wars a lot of cotton of very doubtful quality? It was because of the intense competition, and, frequently, this meant a difference to the spinner between survival and giving up. He had to buy down the grade of his cotton because of the urgent necessity related to the economic conditions of the day, and it was not the method of purchase which determined the quality. In the period which will follow this Bill there will be no such difficult conditions similar to those that obtained between the wars, and the reason can be easily found for that.
There is no reason to believe that there will be any deterioration in quality. Indeed, the reason the vast bulk of buyers in Lancashire have opted to take their supplies from private merchants is because they believe that the private merchants will serve them better, and they will get the quality of cotton which they want. So I do not think that this question of quality gives any grounds for fear that this Bill will do any harm in fact, there is every ground for expectation that it will do a great deal of good.
The second point which has ben made by hon. Members opposite so frequently in this debate and in the previous stages of this Bill is that some members of the Lancashire trade do not want the Bill. We have had letters quoted from various people and the surprising thing to me is that they have not been able, to produce more letters. I feel that the Lancashire manufacturers have been rather slow. If any other industry had 25 per cent. stocks in two successive, years to stock up against its raw material losses, I think that there would have been a greater percentage of industries in Lancashire. 
It is not an unhelpful thing to have all your stock losses in industry covered by a Government organisation, and my surprise is that not more Lancashire people have opted to say that they want to continue this rather beneficial form of trading so far as they are concerned. The answer is, I think, that Lancashire people are made of different stuff—very good stuff which in no way justifies the pessimism shown on the benches opposite this afternoon.
I believe that the Lancashire industry is a virile industry. It has strong independent people, whether managing directors or the people working the spindles. They are all first-class people who can do a first-class job. I do not for one moment imagine that there is to be the sort of disaster overtaking the industry which hon. Members opposite have been talking about.
What is the position which we have to face. We have to face an export quota at the moment of about 25 per cent. and 75 per cent, home trade. Home demand is strong. We can, I think, maintain our export totals in the next 12 months at any rate. But there is no ground for pessimism because this industry is one in which there are people who have great experience and whose workers are better than those anywhere else in the world. We have no reason to fear competition provided we can buy cotton at the right prices—and that is what this Bill is going to do—and give Lancashire spinners the cotton they need.
I am glad that the Government have brought forward this Bill. I am satisfied that it is the right thing to do. It is not merely a petulant reversal of what hon. Gentlemen opposite have done. We think this because we believe that this is the right and proper way in which cotton should be bought, and because we believe that it will give better quality cotton to Lancashire at world competitive prices. That is our belief, and I am satisfied that when this Bill has had a run of a year or so, the fears expressed by the hon. Members opposite will be found to be groundless and the belief we have in the Bill will be fully justified.

Mr. Jack Jones: This is the first occasion on which I have said anything about cotton; steel is more in

my line. But I spent five years as the senior Member for Bolton, and I want to ask the House and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) this: if there is any other very high-grade cotton somewhere which someone else has been getting while the Cotton Commission has been buying lower grades, who has been getting it and how do we intend to get it without out-bidding them in the future?

Mr. Shepherd: I said that they will get more selected grades of cotton. What is important to the spinner, as hon. Gentlemen opposite know, is to get a continuity of the precise grade which will give them no trouble. That is why over half the man buying in the industry opted to go to outside firms, despite the fact that the stock position was not very satisfactory.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes (Ashon-under-Lyne): The proceedings on the Bill are now nearly over, and it will not be long before Mr. Speaker is gathering us, like a lot of chickens, to go to another place to collect a completed Bill and bring it back here. The President of the Board of Trade will be able to say, as another jester did in one of Shakespeare's plays:
An ill-favoured thing, Sir, but mine own.
He will be proud of it.
His opening remarks amused me because he said that much study had been undertaken on this subject. The story which the President of the Board of Trade likes to spin about what led up to the introduction of the Bill in this House rather reminds me of a farmer who once lived near me. He got a cat to keep down the rats. But the farmer, over the years, took exception to the cat because he did not like its colour. And so he set up his own Hopkins Committee.
He consulted his pals as to how they could get rid of the cat. They said, "Make it ill so that it cannot do its job, and that will be an excuse to get rid of it." He asked, "What must I give it?" They replied, "Give it a bit of ginger. "So that is what he did. The cat pined and began wilting away, and the fanner had a very good excuse for getting rid of it. But I believe the unhappy sequel was that the rats came out again.
The Bill removes the monopoly rights of the Commission, but it now puts the onus, so the President of the Board of


Trade tells us, on to private purchasers to supply cotton to Lancashire. That is one piece of positive action in the Bill, shifting the responsibility from the Commission on to the shoulders of the merchants, or whoever it may be, to supply their own cotton in Lancashire.
But in the President's speech yesterday, we find this comment:
There are arguments in favour of bulk purchase on long-term contracts for the purchase of cotton from the Colonies. No one will dispute that. No one will dispute that some benefits have, and can, flow from that kind of arrangement. There are advantages in having a free market in cotton, advantages that flow not only to the purchasers of the cotton but to the producers of cotton—very solid advantages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 2039–40.]
On both sides of the House we can nod our acquiescence, because the right hon. Gentleman there propounds two very solid principles. Unfortunately, however, there is a grave omission, because all that the Bill does is to provide what the President wants, or what he has been pressed to provide, and it has no provision whatever for long-term contracts.
I want to bring home to the President of the Board of Trade and those who work with him that the positive action that they have undertaken in removing the responsibility for getting the cotton to Lancashire does not absolve the President and the Government from responsibility. Neither shall we allow the matter to go by default if there is any trouble whatever in Lancashire with regard to cotton supplies. I warn the Government here and now that we shall pursue the matter as vigorously as it can be pursued.
I say to the President, now that he has returned to the Chamber, "You have ostensibly handed over to the trade your responsibilities for the purchase of cotton for Lancashire. Be careful. Before you make the order for dissolution which can be made under the Bill, fight tooth and nail in the Cabinet to see that you still retain the ability to purchase cotton in bulk. If you do not, it may be that you will not be able to step in at the right time to do exactly what you should be able to do for the Lancashire cotton industry. Increased vigilance will be needed.
The President of the Board of Trade and all his assistants, civil servants and

others, must watch this trade from now on until next year, until the season has come for the American cotton and the season is open for the Egyptian, Sudanese and African cottons in the early part of 1955. The right hon. Gentleman will have to watch the trade as the old farmer's cat used to watch the rats. If he does not, it may be that we shall bring home to him the responsibility for introducing the Bill. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as soon as it can be done, he should insist that the futures contract shall be open to colonial cottons. We have heard that said so often before, but I say it again because of its great importance.
It would be a tragedy if we were to embark on a series of actions backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House about a commodity which is vital to the well-being of so many scores of thousands of people. The Bill was promised quite fortuitously. The promise just came out like that, on a football field in Everton, or wherever it was, in Liverpool.

Mr. Ian Horobin: indicated dissent.

Mr. Rhodes: Oh, yes, it did. The promise was made, and it had to be kept, whatever the season, climate or circumstances at the time.
I cannot deal with all the omissions because that would take me all night. I ask that everybody should try his best from the point of view of ensuring supplies of cotton for Lancashire. From now on it is the private merchant's job to do it. Let the President of the Board of Trade see that he does it, or else, when the right hon. Gentleman goes out to visit the factories on the Great West Road, that notice which he sees will apply to him:
The day of judgment is at hand.

5.17 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). I can start on a point of agreement with him. I, too, think it is important to open futures markets which cover as far as possible all growths of cotton. The first contract is to cover only American cotton. Other similar growths are so similar to it that they can be hedged quite easily on the same contract,


but there are other growths of cotton which are not nearly so similar to the American type, and the sooner they can be put on a futures contract and hedged exactly, the better it will be for all concerned.
Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, the idea of reconstituting the Liverpool Exchange was no hasty idea suddenly thrown out on the Everton football ground. It is a matter of fundamental policy with many of us. We fought tooth and nail against the abolition of the Cotton Exchange in 1947, and many of us resolved to do everything we could to restore it as quickly as possible, because we felt that it was for the good of this most important industry as a whole.
From that point, I should like to go on to two questions raised by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor). He said that because it was the working people of Lancashire who were so vitally affected, the Commission should have remained in being. No particular section of the industry can be happy or prosperous if the others are in deep depression. It is not a matter for one section of the industry only, whether it be the workers or the bosses, or whether it be the spinners, weavers or merchants. Taken as a whole, if the industry is not reasonably prosperous no one can make a reasonable living.
There may be a little bargaining as to who is getting a fair share and who is not. That can usually be reasonably settled, but it is only too well-known that in the 'thirties no bread and butter section of the industry could be even reasonably prosperous against Japanese competition. Those of us in the industry know the miseries of empty mills, of seeing machinery taken out of them, and other depressing occurrences with which hon. Members in all parts of the House are as familiar as I am. We are deeply concerned to see that it does not happen again.
The hon. Member for Eccles went on to say that the Raw Cotton Commission was such a good body because it was backed by the whole wealth of the nation and, therefore, it could give such a good cover. I agree it was an excellent cover, but would the nation agree to lose perhaps £25 million a year to give a good cover to one single industry? If the cotton industry had the right to be

covered in that way, then every other manufacturing industry importing raw materials from all over the world would have an equal reason for demanding Government cover. It would be very improper for any one industry to have a Government cover such as was given to the Raw Cotton Commission.

Mr. Proctor: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that the Lancashire cotton industry had an advantage which is now being take away because he thinks it is unfair?

Sir J. Barlow: Yes, I think the Raw Cotton Commission did give an unfair cover to a particular industry which the country, when it realised it, would not tolerate for other industries. It must either be given to all industries or to none at all.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Surely the hon Gentleman will remember when the scheme was brought forward for commercial television the point was raised about using public money for private enterprise, and the Assistant Postmaster-General asked what was wrong with that? He did not dissent from the view that at times it may be necessary for public money to be used to help private industry, but hon. Members opposite must be consistent about it.

Sir J. Barlow: I know a little about cotton but nothing about television.

Mr. Blackburn: It is the principle.

Sir J. Barlow: I do not propose now to go into that matter.
I am convinced that the Raw Cotton Commission could not buy as cheaply and as efficiently as private enterprise. There are already indications that people who opted out of the Commission and bought direct were able to buy cheaper than the Commission. In 1953 they bought more cheaply than they could have done from the Commission. There is ample proof of that in certain instances.
There are one or two other aspects of this matter with which I should like to deal very briefly, one being the suggestion that the quality of cotton supplied was improved by the Raw Cotton Commission, that it was far better than in pre-war days, and that this was appreciated by the workers because it made spinning and weaving so much easier.
There are two or three reasons for that. One was that there was not the severe competition owing to a sellers' market. In the first three or four years after the war people were quite prepared to buy cotton of a quality slightly above that actually required and it did make much easier working. In addition, I am told that in the case of certain growths of cotton sampling was much better done at source, and people knew exactly what type of cotton they were getting. There was not the same variation in the bulk deliveries as there used to be in the old days.
I agree that it is most important to try and keep that accurate sampling of cotton. One does not want variation, because it makes it difficult for the workers and unsatisfactory for the purchasers of the yarn and cloth. It is also very wasteful.
Then there is the necessity for the futures market itself. One of the principal reasons for it is that buyers of cotton can finance their purchases much more easily, and they can cover their risks. I know that this has been discussed ad nauseum but I should like to say a few words about it. If I, as a merchant, go to buy 1,000 or 5,000 lumps of grey cloth on the exchange in Manchester, as I used to do very frequently, I get a quotation. The manufacturer, having got a quotation for yarn, quotes a price to me.
Very often, if I try to get his price down slightly, he will say, "Let me go and see the spinner." Perhaps with a little going to and fro, in half an hour I shall conclude a bargain and buy the cloth. If it was an order of any size the weaver would have booked his yarn and the spinner within half an hour would have booked for a particular delivery. That secured for me my cloth. I should know the finishing price, and the weaver would have been covered for his yarn and the spinner for his cotton delivery perhaps six months ahead.
That is the very negation of speculation. That is covering any imponderable which one can. When I got that cloth and I knew my finishing price, I could go back to my office and wire the cloth details and price to the markets of the world, and I should get a reply in 24 hours or less. That was how the business was done.
I have tried to explain how things can be started and continued. Let me try to explain how the process works from the other end. The grower of cotton, just as the grower of many other commodities, sows his crop and possibly, when it is partly grown, he thinks the price is going down. He wants to cover himself for part of his crop, so he may sell 20 per cent. of it for three months or six months ahead. As he sees the crop gradually mature he may sell more, and at the end of the season he may have very little crop to sell. That is not speculation; it is securing a price.
When he actually goes to settle his forward contract probably he does not deliver his own cotton at all, but he covers it again. If there is a grower on the one hand prepared to sell that crop in April or May and a consumer beginning to buy a cotton crop in April or May for November or October, they are not speculating but securing their position. This is rather difficult for some people to understand, and I can assure the House that it is difficult to explain unless one has actually done it.
The futures market which handles all these matters is in New York or Liverpool. Perhaps the spinner wants to carry a stock of cotton, but now it is said that he will not be able to finance it, and that, even if he has the money, he ought to be spending that capital on modern machinery and not merely on cotton to carry as stock. As hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt know, the practice of carrying cotton is not one of just buying cotton, paying for it and keeping it in the warehouse until it is needed.
It is put in a bonded warehouse or, by agreement, in a private warehouse and bills can be drawn against it for perhaps 90 per cent. of the value of the cotton, provided it is hedged on the Liverpool Cotton Exchange, so that if there is any substantial fall in the price of cotton there is no loss to the holder of the bills or to the bank advancing the money. By either of those means the spinner can finance his cotton to the extent of 85 per cent. or 90 per cent. of its value, and for that reason it takes little ready cash to carry large stocks.
Although I did not have an opportunity of explaining this upstairs—

Mr. William Keenan: The hon. Baronet had.

Sir J. Barlow: —it does not cost a great deal of money for spinners to carry stocks of raw cotton. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield) pointed out that per spindle many of the small companies have relatively more cash and capital than some of the large combines. So the suggestion that the small people will suffer and the big people will benefit is just not in accordance with the facts.
I know that many of the big concerns opted out to begin with and that many of the smaller ones did not do so, but that was by no means universal. I know that some of the large ones remained in for certain mills and for certain types of cotton and opted out for others. This gave them excellent experience of how the different methods of buying compared, and they found in certain cases that those mills which opted out and bought direct could do so much more satisfactorily.
In contradiction to what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, I feel it to be most important that this Bill should be implemented as quickly as possible. I do not hide the fact that there will be difficulties, because there are bound to be. Incidentally, the Cotton Commission came into being not because private enterprise could not carry on but solely because of war conditions.
I recognise that Lancashire is up against a difficult time and that because textiles are consumer goods they are much more difficult to export to the ends of the earth than are capital goods. I know too well the difficulties in the'30s. I sweated through the bazaars of India, Malaya and China and tried to sell British textiles against Japanese and Chinese competition and I know the impossibility of doing so. No one wants to see those conditions return.
This is not a party problem but a national and, especially, a county problem. I believe sincerely that the private enterprise way of buying raw cotton is the most helpful in securing markets for our exports. For that reason and because it is so much in the interests of Lancashire, I hope that the Bill will be brought into operation as quickly as possible.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. William Keenan: I am pleased to be following the hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), because he was not quite fair when he said that he had not the opportunity to make what appeared to me to be his Second Reading speech upstairs in Committee. The hon. Baronet appeared upstairs a few times but I do not think he occupied the attention of the Committee more than a few minutes during the 10 sittings of two-and-a-half hours each, so if that is anything to go by, we cannot place much reliance on the rest of what he had to say to us just now.
I am aware that on Third Reading we are confined to speaking on what is in the Bill and, therefore, I cannot go as fully into the matter as did the hon. Baronet, according to whom we are doing a great service by taking the buying of cotton away from the Raw Cotton Commission and handing it over to the speculators, largely if not wholly. I have expressed my opinion about their past operations. The hon. Baronet said that this would cheapen the purchase of cotton, but before that he complained of the £25 million a year which was the Government contribution towards the buying of cotton, thus implying that under the Raw Cotton Commission the buyer was better off to the extent of that £25 million than one buying privately without the subsidy.

Sir J. Barlow: Perhaps I have not made the point quite clear. On the one hand, cotton was being subsidised but, on the other hand, there was ample evidence that the actual cost of buying was much more expensive than by private enterprise. As regards the speculators in Liverpool, about whom we have heard so much, if the hon. Gentleman will investigate more closely, he will find that the vast fortunes supposed to have been made in Liverpool were made out of shipping and insurance and not out of cotton.

Mr. Keenan: I do not depart from what others have said over and over again, that when cotton changes hands, as it will do again under the new set-up—if, for instance, I sell it to the President of the Board of Trade and he sells it to my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend sells it to the spinners—it will cost more because I do not sell it for


fun and neither does anybody else, so all the time something is added to the price. That is what people are in business for. They sell to each other and the cost of what they sell goes up. The price does not get cheaper or the transaction would not be worth while. Do let us be rational about these things—

Sir J. Barlow: They might sell at a loss.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: How many have died in the workhouse?

Mr. Keenan: None died in the workhouse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has implied, they were the most propperous people in Liverpool. Many of them lived in the best parts of the suburbs and they did not even like living in Blundellsands but went to Southport because they made so much out of cotton. That will happen again.
I want to take this opportunity of saying a few words about the departure of the Raw Cotton Commission. I remember hearing some very fine things said in this House and elsewhere about the Commission. It seemed then that the individuals who were put in control of the Commission were the best of men. Their integrity was never questioned. They were among the finest men in the industry and knew all about the business. They were engaged in the industry.
After all, the owners in the industry had the confidence not only of this Government but of the last Government and the Coalition Government. I remember also that the President of the Board of Trade was quite anxious that at least one gentleman should stay and he offered him six months' salary to do so. To criticise the Commission now and to want to do away with that body does not make sense to me.
In future, instead of having a Raw Cotton Commission capable of safeguarding stocks, it will be nobody's business to find out the stock position. Judging from what has been said from the Government benches, there will be small or no stocks in the country when the Commission disappears. I would remind the President that when war broke out in 1939 the speculators soon packed up. They could not carry on. I understand that they had the opportunity to do so but refused.
We were in a hopeless position in the matter of holding the stocks which were necessary at that time. That is why the then Cotton Board came into being and the buying had to be done by the Government. That will be the position again if similar circumstances arise. We should do everything possible to guard against that contingency.
Like everybody else, I am concerned about the stock position, and I would remind the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich that I drew attention two days ago to the position in the Sudan. The President has never satisfied either the Standing Committee or this House about what he envisages will be the position during the next 12 months. I submit that it is altogether wrong to leave matters in the present loose form. I submit to the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich that the textile industry was never so prosperous and never enjoyed before the position which it has enjoyed in the last few years of the existence of the Raw Cotton Commission.

Sir J. Barlow: The industry enjoyed great prosperity during the sellers' market throughout the world. As regards the Sudan, the hon. Member will understand that the recent sales of Sudan cotton to the Egyptians had nothing to do with a change in buying here but were due to political conditions out there.

Mr. Keenan: The report that I read was that the price was too high for the Liverpool speculators. I questioned the spokesman for the Minister of Materials and he suggested that the Egyptians would offer the cotton and perhaps the Liverpool merchants would buy it and the Lancashire spinners would obtain it. But the Liverpool merchants will have to pay more for it than the Egyptians paid, and that price will again be increased when the Liverpool merchants sell the cotton to the spinners. That is the game that will go on.
We should clearly understand that the building up and maintenance of this great cotton industry is not at all likely to take place in present circumstances. I think that we are in for a bad time. The difficulty caused by Japanese competition has been mentioned already, and Chinese cotton goods are now on the market in this country. Is this the time to make it more difficult to obtain supplies of cotton?
It is true to say that the supply of the kind of cottons which the industry has been able to obtain through the Raw Cotton Commission will cease with this contemplated change. For this reason it is regrettable that the Government have had to implement what was promised by the Prime Minister in Liverpool. His promise was not made at a football ground but at a large meeting place in Liverpool where boxing takes place. I am not certain whether the Prime Minister was speaking from the ring or not. If he was, then judging by the decision which he then announced he must have been punch drunk.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Ian Horobin: We are coming towards the end of a long debate on a very important matter. As a preface to the few remarks I want to address to the House, I should like to say that I feel that this subject should be treated as a strictly business proposition. It is too important to the livelihood of Lancashire to be dealt with on a basis of Parliamentary back-chat between the living and the dead. I want to stick strictly to the question of how we can obtain the best cotton cheapest.
I want to put one or two points on two main matters which have been in dispute all through the debates on this Bill. Firstly, there is the history of the gradual dissolution of the Raw Cotton Commission. While the Raw Cotton Commission had the monopoly, it was open to everybody to discuss as a matter of theory whether this was a good way of buying cotton. But I submit that debates of that sort are at least 12months out of date. There has been no monopoly for a period extending over more than one season, and we do not have to go for information to hon. Members opposite or on this side of the House, however experienced in our different ways we may be. We can put the matter to the test of what has happened.
I must remind the House of the simple fact that not only have the majority of those who spin the cotton decided that they are better outside, but—and this is even more important—speaking subject to correction, though I am practically certain that I am right, not one single spinner who opted out when he first had the

choice and since has had the choice to opt back into the shelter of the Commission has exercised that second option. So it is really a waste of time to talk to people concerned with the future of the Lancashire cotton industry as though this were a theoretical question between those who like this or that. The people who have actually to spin the cotton or go out of business have decided that by a large majority. Not a single one of them who took his courage in his hands and opted out has since decided that he made a mistake and opted back.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will the hon. Member tell the House, if he were acting in this situation as a prudent, independent manufaacturer and were faced with the certain knowledge that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to wreck the Government machinery of the Row Cotton Commission, he would not be seeking some alternative source of private supply? He would be frightened out of his wits at the prospect of losing his ready supply from the Commission.

Mr. Horobin: The hon. Member is seeking to make his speech in the middle of my speech. This was not known a year ago when the first options were exercised.
The next point which I think must be made quite clear when we are asked whether to give the Bill a Third Reading or not is that we are perpetually having put to us the alternative to the Raw Cotton Commission under this Bill is that the spinners of Lancashire must use these wicked Liverpool speculators. There is nothing of the sort in the Bill. Not one bale of cotton need be bought from a Liverpool merchant by a spinner unless he wishes to buy it; there is nothing to prevent him buying direct and going into business himself like any other manufacturer who buys his raw materials. No cotton will be bought from the merchants unless the spinner decides—whatever hon. Members opposite think—that he will get cotton cheaper from the Liverpool cotton market. The vast majority of them will take that course but they will do so as businessmen and not because they are forced by the Government, or because of what the Prime Minister said in a boxing ring. They will do it simply because, in the free exercise of their discretion, they decide that it is cheaper and better to buy through the Liverpool cotton market.
The Bill contains nothing about starting the Liverpool cotton market. If it is started again it will be solely because enough practical spinners decide that that is the way they want to buy their cotton. The day that the Lancashire spinners decide—if ever they do decide—that the Liverpool cotton market is an expensive, speculative nuisance it will go out of business, because it will have no business to do.
I wish to tie up one or two points on the question of colonial cottons and bulk buying. Even supposing hon. Members opposite are right—we think they are not right—about the advantages they claim for bulk buying for the colonies, there is no need why that should be an argument against giving a Third Reading to this Bill. There is nothing to prevent the Government entering long-term contracts, if they so decide, without this machinery of the Raw Cotton Commission.
The curious thing is that hon. Members opposite never seem to be able to make up their minds either in regard to American cotton, colonial cotton or Sudan cotton exactly on what is their criticism. At one moment they say that stocks of American cotton are being kept low, and that we would be in a better position if the Raw Cotton Commission existed and held stocks and this Bill were not being passed. Yet they frequently tell us that the danger is too much American cotton in the world and that the first futures contract will get into difficulties because of the large stocks of American cotton overhanging the market.
In regard to colonial cotton, at one moment their argument is that the Commission must be kept alive because we should have bulk purchase to encourage colonial types of cotton. The next moment they say the idea is not that this is the best way of giving a good price to the growers but that on the contrary they are grumbling because the merchants outside the Commission having refused to buy at the price now being asked later have to pay more. The two arguments are mutually contradictory.
I am not disputing, no one with any practical knowledge of any branch of the industry would dispute for a moment, that there are grave anxieties overhanging the whole Sudan cotton position, but they have nothing whatever to do with the

method by which we buy cotton. If there is any criticism, it should not be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade but to the Foreign Secretary. What is going on in the Sudan has much more to do with the progressive elimination of British interests there and interference with growing and the Gezira Board, but I must not develop that. Who buys cotton is not the point. Whether we have the Cotton Commission, or Liverpool merchants, or whether spinners buy direct, the anxieties and dangers overhanging the Sudan cotton crop would remain. I freely admit that they are very serious anxieties.
I submit to the House that this return to the traditional way of buying cotton, invented by the practical people of Lancashire over generations, is to be commended to the House. It is not any longer possible to ask the general taxpayer to subsidise very heavily the buying of the raw material for one industry. Why should Lancashire be threatened with ruin if it has to buy its own materials whilst the people of Yorkshire have to buy their wool? Lancashire is just as capable of looking after its affairs as Yorkshire.
It must be clear to people who look at the matter without political prejudice that Lancashire has expressed quite clearly its desire to do its own work and it has confidence that it can do it better than anyone else can do it for Lancashire. There are risks and dangers it is true, but Lancashire will not get out of those dangers nor avoid those risks by trying to shelter behind the general taxpayer, or any bureaucratic machinery doing its work for it. Lancashire is quite capable of looking after itself. It produces the best cotton goods in the world. It is quite as clever and quick off the mark in buying its stuff as anyone else.
I submit that all experience leads us to believe that the less we try to interfere in the purely business arrangements of any of our great industries the better. This is not a new, doubtful, frivolous embarkation into some untried, theoretical scheme, but simply a return to a method invented by Lancashire ingenuity which served Lancashire well and which, I have every confidence, will serve Lancashire well in future.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: At this late stage I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few moments, but I do congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) on one thing. Although I disagree with almost everything he said, he has put up the temperature of the House a little on this Measure which we have been debating for about three months. Any intelligent citizen of this country who has tried to follow our debates over that long period must by now have made up his mind that the Government are crazy to be proceeding with this Measure which has been riddled with criticism from every side—professional, industrial and political.
In putting forward his vigorous contribution, the hon. Member for Oldham, East produced no new idea but merely restated the old-fashioned Benthamite idea, which was at the root of the old "Manchester School."

Mr. Horobin: Manchester is in Lancashire.

Mr. Price: I am speaking as a Lancashire man, having seen the tragic result of that philosophy applied to my county.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure my hon. Friend would be the first to agree that, whatever may have been the arguments for the Manchester School, in Manchester there is precious little of that philosophy left in the Yarn Spinners' Association.

Mr. Price: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and I am sorely tempted to pursue that line of thought. It provides a rich vein of criticism to which hon. Members opposite are vulnerable.
In the relatively short time I have been a Member of this House, I have never been regarded as a rank party politician, although I hold as tenaciously as any man to the Socialist philosophy of the electors in my division who sent me here. Nevertheless, it is open to any Member with eyes to see that the Tory Party, on this or on any issue which is regarded as a "sticky wicket"—when something has to be put across to the country which may have unfortunate results for sections of our people—are adepts at introducing the technique of singing "The more we are together, the happier we shall be."
I have never taken the view that in politics a man must hate his opposite number because he thinks differently. But I deplore the sort of thing which has been practised in this House. Yesterday the President of the Board of Trade appeared in a white sheet, asking for an indemnity for something he had done which he had no right to do. Today he appears in a pale pink sheet appealing to us to get together regardless of party considerations. According to the right hon. Gentleman, we are full of good intentions for the welfare of our people. We have no other intentions towards them. All we want to do is to add one more branch to the betting industry in Liverpool.
As a representative of a Lancashire constituency, am I not entitled to object bitterly when the raw material on which the livelihood of thousands of people depend is put into the hands of speculators, people who brought to an end the economic freedom of our people in bygone years? Is not that a moral issue upon which we are entitled to state our opinions?
I claim that by so doing we are carrying out the mandate of the people who sent us here and who have declared with one voice—at any rate so far as the working population is concerned—that this Measure is abhorrent to them; but they regard it with fear and apprehension. Even now, at this late stage, they implore us to appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, and to his colleagues in the Government, to exercise the greatest discretion in the use of the powers still remaining in this Bill.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Oldham, East to try to explain the recent happenings in the Alexandria cotton market, when merchants from this country failed to buy any Egyptian cotton at all. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) who referred to a speech by Sir Thomas Barlow, one of the most eminent and distinguished figures in the cotton industry, and, incidentally, one who once employed me as a very junior servant in his company—though I do not claim that is anything about which he should be proud. Are we not entitled to point out that the town from which Sir Thomas Barlow emanates, and where his company operate their great factories, is almost


entirely dependent on a supply of Egyptian cotton; and that today we are facing a situation in which the only Egyptian cotton remaining in this country are those residual supplies controlled by the Raw Cotton Commission?
It is all very well to say that this is a political consideration which has nothing to do with the economic factors. I completely reject such a baseless argument. The reason the hagglers in the market at Alexandria are holding out for a fantastic price level, and holding to ransom the merchants and the cotton industry of this country, is precisely that they know that the dislocation created has caught certain sections of the industry short of stocks of the right quality.
It is all very well for my old friend the hon. Member for Oldham, East—if he will allow me so to refer to him—to say that this is politics. I should get into serious trouble with Mr. Deputy-Speaker if I entered on metaphysical grounds and tried to distinguish where economics end and politics begin. But that is the sort of dilemma with which many hon. Members are faced, although we all try to discharge our duties here—at least I hope we do—as fearlessly, as honourably and as vigorously as we can.
This short contribution to the debate may not have followed the lines I originally intended, but nevertheless it is a sincere plea to the Government, on behalf of the people of Lancashire, not to continue with this iniquitious Measure, which is fraught with such great consequences to the people of my native county.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: We on this side of the House have no difficulty in complying with what we understand to be the view of the Government, that this debate should be drawn to a close. We make no complaint at having been denied time to discuss this matter, either in the House or in Standing Committee. We had no less than ten sittings of the Standing Committee on this Bill which contains five operative Clauses. We feel that was a reasonable amount of time.
By this short but important Bill we upset what is now an institution of long standing, and we are taking a leap in the dark for which very little justification has

been advanced. It is right that we should have had plenty of time to discuss it. But, if it was reasonable to have tea sittings of the Standing Committee on a Bill of five Clauses, we cannot see, why it has suddenly become unreasonable to have eight sittings of the Standing Committee dealing with six Clauses in another Bill—but that, perhaps, is another question.
Hon. Members opposite who represent Lancashire constituencies will have to explain to their constituents why it is that they have taken few opportunities to use the time available to discuss this Measure; and why it was that during all the long sittings of the Standing Committee, and even yesterday, during the Report stage, they did not bother to explain their attitude to a Bill which is bound to affect their constituencies just as badly and adversely as the constituencies represented by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: As one of the Lancashire Members whom the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to attack, I would say that the reason we did not intervene was that the position was put so well by the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Marquand: I do not know if the hon. Member was a member of the Standing Committee. I cannot remember seeing him there.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: indicated dissent.

Mr. Marquand: Had he been a member—

Mr. Keenan: It would have made no difference.

Mr. Marquand: —he would know that the Government were so hard put to it that they could not man the Committee properly. They had to have two hon. Members sitting on two Committees which were meeting at the same time to consider two separate Bills.
When Government supporters do not make speeches on Committee stage we understand why, but on Report stage, when there is a clear understanding of the limited time-table, we expect to hear from them. Last night they were not even present, and on two occasions an attempt was made to count out the House


because there was not the necessary number of hon. Members in the Chamber. No hon. Member opposite who represents a Lancashire constituency, except the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), ventured to address the House. In the end, the Government majority fell to 11. It is obvious that hon. Members opposite who sit for Lancashire constituencies have no enthusiasm whatsoever for the Bill. They could not bother to speak in Committee and they did not bother to turn up yesterday, and it is on record that some of them did not even bother to vote for the Government last night.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Has my right hon. Friend read the "Manchester Guardian"?

Mr. Marquand: There was a complete absence of enthusiasm on the other side of the House yesterday. The President was glum because he was under heavy fire. The only person who deserves exemption from my strictures is the ever-ebullient hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). He deserves a pat on the back from his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jack Jones: The good shepherd among the sheep.

Mr. Marquand: Earlier today the President referred to the great reputation which the commodity markets of this country have enjoyed in the past. We do not deny that those markets have enjoyed that reputation or that great merchant firms of this country have an international reputation which stands very high indeed, but we believe that the right hon. Gentleman will very gravely endanger that reputation by setting up, in highly uncertain circumstances and upon utterly inadequate foundations, a new market, for it will be a new market in the absence of many of the former traders who have now been removed from the scene because of old age and so on.
What I have just said was confirmed in the short speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin). We gladly and warmly welcome his intervention; we were delighted to hear from him. He went so far as to suggest that when the Bill finally reaches the Statute Book—if it ever does; I hope it will not—there may be no market at all.

Mr. Horobin: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misconstrue what I said. I said nothing of the sort. What I said was quite the contrary. I went so far as to say that it was obvious that a futures market would be set up. I said that the Bill does not set it up. It will only be set up and will only continue if the spinners of Lancashire decide to do their business through it. That is very different.

Mr. Marquand: What I stated was what I understood from what the hon. Gentleman said previously. I accept his correction. I very much agree with him that it remains to be seen how far the spinners of Lancashire use whatever sketchy kind of market the Liverpool merchants succeed in setting up. I shall be very surprised if many of them do not decide not to bother with it at all but, instead, to make their own arrangements for the direct shipment of cotton.
If that happens, it certainly will not fulfil the optimistic prophecies made by the President this afternoon. He told us that he is confident—I know I am quoting accurately, because I took down his words—that as good cover will be provided for spinners as obtains in any country in the world. That may be so; we doubt it, but we accept that it might be possible. But we say that, even if that is true, the cover will not be half as good as that which the Commission was providing while it was in existence.
There is little doubt that the cover will be inadequate. We have heard from hon. Member after hon. Member on the benches opposite, who speak with special knowledge of sections of the Lancashire cotton industry, that those sections are fearful that the cover will not be forthcoming in the types and kinds of growths of cotton in which they deal. They say that cover for the American type will be available because there is a great market in New York which may be used for this purpose—although there is some risk of losing dollars thereby—but they are almost on their knees pleading with the Lancashire merchants to guarantee them cover in the colonial types and the fine long staple cottons which their parts of the industry use.
The President admitted that sections of the industry were worried about the lack of stocks, but he gave no convincing


assurance whatever that the stocks really will be forthcoming. He seems to rely upon the optimistic but entirely doctrinaire and theoretical belief of the hon. Member for Cheadle that, because somebody would make a profit if he had some cotton, we can be quite sure that cotton will be forthcoming. I do not believe we can.
I was fortified in that belief by what the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East said last night. His very short speech was delivered during one of the curious altercations that we sometimes get in Committee about whether or not something is strictly in order. I have no wish in the slightest degree to suggest any criticism of the Chair—no doubt the Rulings were all entirely correct—but it was nevertheless unfortunate that the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was cut short. I wish he could have made his speech later on Report. It was a very important speech, and I am surprised that the President did not reply to it today.
The hon. and learned Member referred to:
…the real anxiety of many hon. Members representing Lancashire constituencies.
He did not mean anxiety on the part of my hon. Friends, for that would not worry him; he meant anxiety among his hon. Friends. He said:
The real anxiety of Lancashire—certainly in the fine spinning areas—is the position of stocks.
He went on to refer to:
…the difficulty which some of us apprehend, which is that when the Raw Cotton Commission ceases to buy there may not be sufficient stocks in the country. I am told that 60 per cent. of the fine spinning trade contracted in and did their buying through the Raw Cotton Commission. The fine spinning areas are particularly anxious that we should have an adequate supply of cotton, for two reasons.
The hon. and learned Member said that the first reason was a strategic one. Referring to the other, he said:
…we must facilitate employment and avoid the time lag by carrying large stocks. It seems clear that the stocks are temporarily run down for some reason. I should like the Minister to satisfy parts of Lancashire which are most anxious—."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 2064.]
There the hon. and learned Member was cut short. It was a right and proper request, especially coming from a repre-

sentative of Bolton, to ask for such an assurance. But it has not been given today. The Opposition at any rate remain completely unconvinced, from all that we have heard in our debates, that the stocks really will be forthcoming.
The hon. and learned Member, having made that speech a minute or two before the Division took place, did not then support the Government in the Division Lobby. I can well understand why. I have good reason to believe that it may have been due to a perfectly natural and entirely honourable fact in that he happened to have "paired" on that occasion. How glad he must have been that he had paired and thus did not have to support his Government in the Lobby on a matter about which he was obviously entirely in disagreement with the Government!
I hope the Minister will give us some assurance about the availability of stocks of cotton from the sterling and soft currency areas, particularly the long staple cottons from the Sudan and elsewhere which are the issue in this matter.
It is pretty evident from what has been said by hon. Members opposite that they are now beginning to have second thoughts. They wanted to get rid of the Raw Cotton Commission, partly because we set it up, and partly because it conflicted with the views which they have held all their lives. They are now beginning to see that though it may have been reasonably safe, from their point of view, for those who use American growths, it is beginning to look very dangerous for those who use other sorts. They are beginning to wish—and we could see it in the debates last night and again today—that the Raw Cotton Commission had been kept in existence, at least for the long staple colonial, Sterling Area types of cotton. Many of them still wish it now, and there is still time. It could be done, because, even if this Bill goes through, the Raw Cotton Commission does not have to be dissolved or wound up unless the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Materials decide that it is in the public interest so to do.
Let Members opposite think it over again. Let them consider whether it would not be better, and worth while even now, to retain the Raw Cotton Commission, not as it is now, because I


do not think the half-and-half business would do, but with its functions so modified as to make it responsible particularly, specially and solely for that type of cotton. Let me not be misunderstood. I am not saying that this is the right way to do it. I dislike this Bill entirely, and I do not wish it to be passed and become law, but I do say that the right hon. Gentleman, if he obtains the approval of this House and of Parliament for his Bill, should then still consider whether, since the Bill gives him power to keep a modified Commission in operation, he ought not to do it in the interests of Lancashire and also in the interests of the colonial and other Sterling Area producers.
The right hon. Gentleman made no reference this afternoon to the Colonies. Surely it is the prime duty, in the interests of Lancashire consumers and also of the Colonies, for any Minister concerned with the cotton trade to preserve, encourage and expand in every way possible the supplies of cotton from the Sterling Area and other soft currency countries. We all know—we have heard the figures many times—that, while the Raw Cotton Commission has been in existence, these supplies have steadily increased. Ever since public buying came into existence during the war, they have gone on increasing.
Now, the hon. Member for Oldham, East expresses grave anxiety about the danger—those were his words—of the position in regard to Sudan cotton, so that it is admitted that there is grave danger of a failure of supplies of Sudan cotton which might seriously affect certain parts of Lancashire. There is almost equal anxiety in the Colonies about this, and the last Report which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State presented to us about the Colonial Territories in May, 1953, referred to some of these Territories as follows:
The West and Central African cottons and the output of Aden sakel cotton are still sold to the United Kingdom Raw Cotton Commission under long-term agreements…existing long-term contracts are of course unaffected but, where they do not exist or when they terminate, fresh marketing arrangements will have to be considered.
The Report goes on to say, about the West Indian Sea Island cotton producers, that they

…are in a more difficult position, and maintenance of production will depend on marketing arrangements now being negotiated with the United Kingdom fine spinners.
Whatever may be the state of things in Uganda, it is quite clear that the Colonial Territories, as far as cotton is concerned, are by no means happy about the situation. They do not know exactly what is going to happen. There was no indication of what might happen, and I asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question yesterday about the possible position regarding the cotton exports of these Territories, and the right hon. Gentleman told me:
I have asked the governments and marketing boards in territories which have long-term contracts with the Raw Cotton Commission to consider what alternative marketing arrangements should be made when these contracts expire in two to four years' time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 208.]
It is the same story that we had in this document, which must have been compiled at least a year ago—"I have asked them to consider." There is no certainty about it; no result has been arrived at, and no indication is given to us as to what is to happen in these Colonies.
The effect of this Bill—and this has been admitted by the President himself—will be to increase the drain upon our dollar reserves. It will require the expenditure of more and more dollars, put more and more dollars in jeopardy, and, at least, will open the door to the export of capital on account of that happening, and at a time when we are by no means certain of having sufficient reserves of dollars in hand to be able to carry us through any lurchings in the United States economy which may occur. At the same time, it has emerged, as a result of these debates—and we hardly foresaw the magnitude of it on Second Reading—that even the users of sterling area cotton are confronted with an outlook of uncertainty.
The result of this Bill, if it becomes law, will not only be confusion in Liverpool and at the Board of Trade—and heaven knows, we had plenty of evidence of that already when we discussed the extraordinary retrospective legislation contained in this Bill. In fact, there can never before have been a Bill before the House of Commons which had five operative Clauses and two pieces of retrospective legislation in them.
This Bill will maintain and increase the confusion in Liverpool and in the Board of Trade which already exists. It will ensure for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England uncertainty about our dollar reserves. It has spread and will spread dismay in the Colonies and among the Lancashire workers in the cotton mills, where already we see the growing shadow of the fear of unemployment.
One day, as a result of what is being done here, as a result of certain other things that have happened recently, and as a result of the failure of hon. Members opposite properly to look after the real interests of their constituents in Lancashire—and before long, too—this discontent in Lancashire will bring the party on this side of the House back to power. On that day, we shall not fail them.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am taking the unusual course of speaking from a back bench at the end of a debate, and of intervening between two Front Bench speakers who are charged with the responsibility of making the final observations on the Bill for their respective parties. I do it the more sincerely in that I realise that I have nothing very new to say; but I represent a constituency which came into existence only because of the rise of the textile manufacturing industry in Lancashire. Today, to a greater extent than any other constituency, it depends on the textile manufacturing industry, which itself depends upon raw cotton, for its livelihood. I do not feel the same willingness, which apparently some other Lancashire Members feel, to give a silent vote in the matter.
What is the House being invited to do? It is the Third Reading of the Bill, and therefore it would be out of order to refer to anything which is not in the Bill or which one might wish were in it. What does the Bill positively do? The Government have already brought to an end the Raw Cotton Commission and this is a Bill to give retrospective validity to what is virtually a fait accompli. What is the contemplated result? What is it that the Government wish to do and that they are asking for in the Bill? They are taking a number of things for which there has been since 1940 public respon-

sibility and they are saying that there shall not again be any disinterested public responsibility for seeing those functions performed.
The functions for which the Government are abdicating all public responsibility are those about the importance of which in the national interest there cannot be, and has not been at any time, any dispute. One is the supply of raw cotton at reasonably stable prices. Another has been the maintenance of adequate levels of stocks of that raw material in the country. No doubt the levels ought to be different at different times, but one must see that there is at any time the level adequate for that time. The public interest further requires, the cotton textile industry being still our principal exporting industry, that all those firms, big and little, desiring to take part in the industry shall have secured to them an adequate supply of suitable raw material at suitable prices on suitable terms. It is in the public interest to see that the cotton-growing capacity of the territories overseas for which we have responsibility that we ought not to evade and cannot escape are not merely maintained but are encouraged to develop.
For all those things there was, while the Raw Cotton Commission was still functioning, a non-profit-making body, an impartial, disinterested body, charged with the performance of those public responsibilities. I see two Lancashire Members on the Government side of the House smiling. I am sure they are not smiling in disagreement, because the first Government to say that there should be public responsibility for those matters was not a Labour Government but was a Conservative Government.

Mr. Shepherd: I was laughing at the extreme delicacy with which the hon. Member described a loss of £50 million as "non-profit-making."

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member may think it worth while at this stage of this long controversy to make a rather cheap and—if he will permit me to say—stupid debating point. Whether a loss or a profit is made at any particular moment is one thing, which may depend upon efficient handling or upon quite other matters; but my point is not affected at all.
While the Raw Cotton Commission existed there was a non-profit-making


body, that was intended to be a non-profit-making and disinterested body, charged with the responsibility for seeing that certain matters which are obviously in the public interest were discharged in the public interest. All that the Government are scrapping. Never again while the Government have the power will there be such an authority to secure the public interest in these matters. Every attempt has been made during the course of these proceedings on the Bill to see that some semblance of public responsibility remained was resisted to the end, and each of them was defeated.
The Government have never said that at all times and in all circumstances this business is best left to the private enterprise of profit-making concerns. They have recognised that for 10 years there were circumstances in which this business had to be done in other ways; but now they are taking away the controls and this public responsibility, at a time when two things are happening which should at least have stayed their hands for the time.
One thing is the powerful and almost catastrophic new blow which is given to Lancashire's diminishing trade by the Japanese Agreement, when one would have looked for a little greater care for Lancashire's interest rather than a little less public care. The other circumstance is that the world is obviously—I will not say "tumbling"—progressing towards a period of great economic instability. I do not pause to examine why or to apportion responsibility for that kind of thing, but everyone knows the trend of world trade today, and that we are on the eve of critical conditions not comparable with anything the world has known for, it may be, 25 years.
At this moment, when Lancashire is staggering under the blow of the Japanese Agreement and when world conditions are getting progressively more insecure, the Government take the course of removing all public responsibility for matters on which the economic health of the nation obviously depends.

6.38 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I agree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) that this is an important Bill, and that we are quite right to dis-

cuss it fully and carefully because its proposals affect the welfare and efficiency of one of our most important national industries.
We have discussed the Bill during its various stages from every conceivable angle. We may be said to have talked
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
all in their aspects relevant to the Bill. We had one interesting controversy as to whether it was possible for a body to bleed to death, and we were told that it was not, because death supervened in the meantime That seemed to me rather an academic point, wearing an air of distinction. At another point there was deep anxiety because it appeared that the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) was involved in a snow drift.
There are real differences of views between us on this matter, but in spite of those differences our debates have been good-tempered throughout. I realise that we have not succeeded in overcoming the anxieties of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am sorry about that. The anxieties they feel were temperately expressed today in the speech of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor). At bottom there is a basic difference in outlook between us. Hon. Gentlemen opposite like State-sponsored monopolies and are intensely suspicious of a market. We, on the other hand, believe that a properly constituted market generally provides the most economic and efficient service.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) that it is possible to avoid losses, to make money and at the same time to provide a cheap and efficient service. He seemed to imply that if one made money in providing a service one automatically provided an expensive and an extravagant service.

Mr. Keenan: The right hon. Gentleman misinterprets me. I have attempted to point out that the speculator did not add anything—he took money out. That is my point, and has been all along.

Mr. Amory: I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman in all cases—but I will not go into that very deeply at the moment.
We believe that in this case all the evidence points to the fact that, in the long run a free market will provide a


more efficient and economical service. I want to make it clear that we are just as anxious as any hon. Member opposite that everything possible should be done to ensure that the sad days in Lancashire between the wars shall never return. But I want to bring the House to the realities of the issue facing us.
To repeat what my right hon. Friend has said, there are, in the present circumstances really three alternatives. The first is to go back to the full monopoly. If we were to adopt that course we should be flying in the face of the advice of the two Hopkins Committees. Or we can continue with the present half-and-half system. No one seems to be very enthusiastic about that, and I think it is clear that if we followed that course continuing charges on public funds would result. The third course, which we have adopted, is to terminate the Cotton Commission. In spite of all our discussions, I am not quite clear which of the three courses hon. and right hon. Members opposite want.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman is producing this quite false antithesis of the three courses, will he first recognise that it was his own Government which first introduced the miserable half-and-half system which he now condemns? Will he also recognise that on many occasions we have produced a fourth workable course, not listed in his three, which it would be quite out of order for us to debate when we are debating, not what ought to be but what is, unfortunately, in the Bill?

Mr. Amory: I do not quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He has suggested courses to be adopted for the short-term, but I know of no suggested long-term courses other than those three.

Mr. Marquand: What about a Commission specially responsible for buying the colonial and sterling area cotton products, and nothing else?

Mr. Amory: That, surely would not cover the ground completely. I suggest that would be a very partial step.
We have three main reasons for believing that the course which we have selected is the right one. First, it does pave the way for a reopening of an inter-national free market. Over the years,

we sincerely believe that that is most likely to provide a flexible, sensitive and quick working source of procurement of raw cotton, and the most efficient means of providing cover. Second, the retention of the Raw Cotton Commission would be likely to involve, as I have mentioned, a continuing charge upon public funds. In this connection we really must not forget that figure of over £45 million of public money which has been lost over the last two years. Third, we believe that the restoration of an international market will enhance the commercial prestige of the United Kingdom, and over the years, bring important financial benefit.
Doubts have been expressed on several heads. We have dealt with them very fully, and I am not going over the ground again. The first doubt is whether supplies will be available in the transitional period. I agree that it would be most serious if, during this period, an adequate service were not to be available. If we felt for one moment that the situation were going to affect adversely employment in the cotton textile industry we should be loath indeed to go forward with these proposals.
The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) gave some interesting information about the financing of stocks. I would urge spinners once more to look ahead and plan with their brokers or merchants their future requirements. Very similar fears to those we have heard have been expressed during the past year or two when other markets were reopened but, in the event, things have gone more smoothly than was expected. I believe that will be the case here too.

Mr. Philip Bell: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to deal with the Group II spinners, who are at great disadvantage when there is no Egyptian futures contract? I never suggested that the Raw Cotton Commission should go on indefinitely, but until the Ministry have ascertained that the merchants are going to take up the cotton, cannot we, as a reserve, keep the Commission alive?

Mr. Amory: If my hon. and learned Friend will wait, I shall say a word about that in a moment.
The second doubt concerns the quality of cover likely to be provided. I sug-


gest that, in fact, there will be little difference in the quality of the cover provided under the futures scheme and that existing under the present cover scheme. In both cases the basis is the price of American cotton. I believe that even while there is only the American contract there will be some quite important advantages under the new system. As far as the cover goes for Sudan, colonial and Egyptian growths, the position will be almost identical because, under the present scheme, the basis for covering those growths is, again, the New York price of American cotton.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) raised the question of a contract for those other outside growths. We all entirely agree that it would be a most desirable thing to have. As the hon. Member knows, the Liverpool Cotton Association has promised to consider, and, in fact is considering that problem now. It is aiming to introduce another contract for outside growths as soon as circumstances make it feasible, but the hon. Gentleman knows that there are some very real difficulties against doing that now. The biggest difficulty is probably the fact that there is not an international market in Alexandria at the present time.

Mr. Marquand: Could we now have a guarantee from the right hon. Gentleman that, under the terms of Clause 4, it will not be in the public interest to wind up the Raw Cotton Commission until that contract for outside growths has been made?

Mr. Amory: No, I never said, or implied that for one moment, and certainly we could not give such an assurance. I said—and I would like to repeat—that we should all like to see a second contract brought into existence at the earliest practical and possible time.
Everyone wants to see Commonwealth and colonial production of cotton con-

tinue its remarkable development of recent years. It is really a very fine story indeed We believe that development will continue, because those cottons are earning a great reputation on their merits. This view is also held by the colonial authorities concerned, who have made no representations which would indicate that they are unduly worried about the proposals contained in this Bill.

We are just as concerned as hon. Members opposite that the interests of colonial cotton producers should be watched and actively encouraged. A time may come when further long-term contract will be in the interests of certain colonial producers, but to continue a State-buying monopoly would be a very blunt, clumsy and expensive way to provide against that possibility.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said, hon. Members opposite do not pay enough regard to the fact that our cotton merchants are skilled, experienced and responsible people. Their energies will be devoted to building up the prestige and the standing of the market, and we must remember that their own living depends on selling as much cotton as they can, whether for forward delivery or from stock, and in providing the most efficient service possible to all sections of the trade.

We are all glad that the important matter of compensation has been settled to the complete satisfaction, I believe, of all hon. Members. We are satisfied that in the present circumstances, and also looking to the future, this Bill is a thoroughly sensible Measure, and that the new arrangements that will follow its passing will provide a vitally important industry with a service second to none in the world for the supply of its raw material. I confidently invite the House to give this Bill a Third Reading.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 280. Noes, 261.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — HILL FARMING BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

8.40 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I should like at the outset to congratulate my hon. Friends the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on the way in which they have conducted the proceedings on this Bill on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. Whatever feelings may be aroused by this Bill, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I look upon it primarily as a matter of legislative machinery. We are, in this limited field of hill farming, applying the general principle agreed upon more than a year ago in the Housing Acts of 1952 in the wider field of housing generally.
This Bill does not in any way introduce a new principle. It removes an anomaly and it is to remove that anomaly and not to perform a piece of bureaucratic tying-up that this Bill has been produced. The Housing Acts of 1952 made grants and subsidies available without any condition that a cottage, if not occupied by the owner, must be let to a tenant. It has been argued that the grants and subsidies under these Acts are available to owners of hill farms and that it should therefore not be necessary to legislate expressly for them.
The House will remember that the grants and subsidies provided under the Housing Acts are not always of the nature of 50 per cent. as they are under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. The House also will recollect that the 50 per cent. grants under the latter Acts are payable in a lump sum as soon as the work has been performed, whereas the subsidy under the Housing Acts is more limited both in amount and scope. I realise there are different features so far as England and Wales and Scotland are concerned but I think the House will agree with what I have said. As I see it, that is an important consideration when owners are trying to improve their property and are short of capital, as very often they are.
I think it fair to say that the previous Administration paid just as great regard to hill farming as we are doing. The previous Administration at that time gave grants under the housing Acts, but they also gave special grants for cottages under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts as well. That is all we are doing in this Bill.
I think it will be agreed on both sides of the House that there is a special case for helping hill farming as far as possible, and that is why 50 per cent. grants have been made available. We feel that it would have been unjust to continue to withhold this advantage from the hill farmer in this instance if and when he intends to tie his cottage, as many hill farmers in outlying districts are obliged to do. That is the general reason for the introduction of the Bill.
I want to say a few words about the criticism which has been made because we did not consult the workers' unions before we introduced the Bill. I hope the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) will accept it from me that, however much he may think that a mistake has been made—I hope that when I have finished he will not think a mistake has been made—the mere fact that no consultation took place in no way meant any disrespect towards those whose president he is. I hope in future to rely on the advice which I get from the organised workers, as I have always done in the past.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say why he did not consult the farm workers' unions.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am coming to that, but I wanted it to be quite clear that no disrespect was intended. The point is that it was not a question of consultation. It was only a matter of following on the Housing Acts of 1952. What could we have said? We could certainly have listened—maybe we should have done—attentively and sympathetically to what had been represented to us, but the principles of the Bill had already been settled by the Housing Acts of 1952, and, in addition, the Government's intention in the matter had been made plain long before the Housing Acts of that year.
I admit at once that we did not consult the workers' unions, but neither did we consult the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Gooch: Yes.

Sir T. Dugdale: No, we did not. Nor did we consult the Central Landowners'Association. It is true that representations were made by the farmers and landowners, and it was surely open to the workers' unions to do the same had they so desired.

Mr. George Brown: They did not know the Bill was coming.

Sir T. Dugdale: That is not so. There was ample time, for the Bill was actually published on 20th November, 1953. But from that date until the Second Reading no representations were made, although we were well aware of the point of view taken by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North and those whom he represents in this matter.

Mr. Gooch: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that we should have come to him and asked for something that we did not want?

Sir T. Dugdale: No, I am arguing that it did not come as a surprise to the hon. Member. He has taken part in the debates on the Bill and, quite rightly, has expressed his view, which is contrary to that of the Government.
I want to make it abundantly clear that, although we may be in disagreement about the matter and the approach to it, this is not a fundamental Bill in which a decision about principles has been taken. It is a machinery Bill designed to meet a limited case. No disrespect was in any way intended to the hon. Gentleman and those who are associated with him.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary promised that the Government would consider introducing an Amendment in another place to give effect to the wish of hon. Members opposite that sitting occupiers of grant-aided cottages should be informed of their position and, in particular, of the fact that they still have a tenancy despite the change which the Bill brings about.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we are confined on Third Reading to what is actually in the Bill.

Sir T. Dugdale: I was going on to say that, in fact, this is in the Bill, and was going to show how the wishes of hon. Members, as expressed in the Committee, are now actually expressed in the Bill. I think I can, within the provisions of the Bill as it now stands, willingly undertake that those who are in occupation of grant-aided cottages which had been built and occupied under the Hill Farming Act, will, when this Bill takes effect, receive a letter explaining its effect; in particular, that the tenants and their dependants will have the same protection under the Rent Restriction Acts as they had before the passage of this Bill. Therefore, no further Amendment is necessary in this regard. I hope the House will be satisfied with the assurance I have given, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that sitting tenants will be informed that their tenancies are not affected.
There is one other point which runs parallel with that. It has been suggested during our debates that, after this Bill becomes law, the dependants of existing tenants of grant-aided cottages will be in a worse position than before this Bill is passed. Here again, I can give a categorical assurance that nothing in this Bill touches the protection given by the Rent Restriction Acts to existing tenants or their dependants.
In asking the House to give a Third Reading to this Bill, I would conclude by saying that it deals only with a very narrow point and brings cottages in the areas governed by the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts into line with the provisions of the Housing Acts passed by this House in 1952.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: First of all, we are glad to see that a Minister of one of the Departments concerned has come to the House to accept the parentage of this miserable Bill. It is no disrespect or unkindness to either of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, who have been saddled with all the responsibility up to now, to say that, all the way through the discussion on this Bill, to us one of the most unsatisfactory features has been that, on a Bill which has a bad effect from our point of view, which is so offensive to so many people, rightly or wrongly, neither of the Cabinet Ministers concerned should, until the


very end of our debates, have turned up to bear the responsibility or face the criticisms and arguments about it. Therefore, we are glad to see that, even on the death-bed, the Minister of Agriculture has turned up and himself sought to defend his own Bill.
One of the interesting things about that is that, the moment the Minister himself arrives, the whole ground for this Bill changes. Neither of his hon. Friends has, in fact, argued at any stage of the discussion that we needed to have this Bill simply because the 1952 Housing Acts had introduced this procedure, or that it was wrong, unfair or improper to retain a different procedure in the case of hill farm cottages. So far, the argument has not been that at all. It has been that in some way we needed to make the change in order to secure that more effective use should be made of the Hill Fanning and Livestock Rearing Acts, and the Minister himself will note, if he reads the reports of the proceedings while he has not been here, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and myself have repeatedly asked for evidence that that, in fact, was so.

Brigadier F. Medlicott (Norfolk, Central): rose—

Mr. Brown: No, I cannot give way. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will no doubt seek to catch the eye of Mr. Deputy-Speaker in order to make his point later.
One of our problems has been that this Bill, for its Committee stage, was squeezed into a most inadequate time, so that Amendments had to be hurried over in order that another debate might start at 7 p.m. Now, the Third Reading stage comes on at 8.30 p.m., at the end of a day and at the end of the week, and we are all placed under pressure to get the debate over in a reasonable time. Therefore it makes it difficult to conduct a debate in this way.
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman was going to remind me that references were made to that matter earlier on, I reply that that is true. References were made, but the major claim was not made that that was the reason for the Bill. The major claim was that we had to get this procedure put right in this way in order to get full and effective use made of the

Livestock Rearing Act. I would have preferred that argument, if there had been anything in it. We repeatedly asked for evidence and we were repeatedly told that it was not there. If there had been, there would have been something to be said for the argument.
There is nothing in the argument on the Housing Acts. They give, as the Minister has said, a very limited sum of public money for houses to be tied that normally are in urban areas. The tying principle operates there in wholly different circumstances and with a wholly different sum of public money involved. It does not follow—why should it?—that the same principle applies to the farm worker's or shepherd's cottage in isolated hill farm areas where 50 per cent. of public money will be involved. There is no reason why one principle should be applied and not the other.
The Minister says that it is an anomaly, and not bureaucratic tidying up. Why should we have the same conditions applying in the one case as we have applying in the other? There is nothing anomalous about it. The cases are not on all fours. There may be an argument that in a town or an urban street the gasworks manager, the waterworks engineer or the railway signalman do not need the protection that the shepherd and his dependants need in an isolated position. If we are giving a limited subsidy in the other case there may be some argument that it is reasonable not to give more protection in the other, but it does not follow that if we give 50 per cent. in the isolated position it is an anomaly. The cases are wholly different, and that is our complaint against the Minister in respect of compensation.
He did try to slide off tonight. In point of fact, he decided at some stage, either after representations from the N.F.U. or before, and either before or after representations from the landlords, to introduce the Bill. I am still not clear whether the N.F.U. and the C.L.A. asked for the Bill and the Minister has not cleared it up even now. I am not sure that the Bill was not born in the Ministry without any representations from anybody. At some stage he had representations from the National Farmers' Union and from the county landowners. I gather that he had those representations


before the Bill came to the House. That was the sense of what he said. At no stage, before he had officially committed himself, did he go to the workers who were affected and ask them whether they had any comments to make. It is no use the Minister saying that the definition—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is repeating arguments that have been used at an earlier stage of the Bill. Consultations, whether rightly or wrongly, are not now part of the Bill. We are on the Third Reading.

Mr. Brown: I am seeking to comment upon a point which the Minister developed at some length.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is a later stage.

Mr. Brown: I accept this Ruling, although it will make things difficult for us. I am giving the major reason why the Bill should not be enacted in its present form. Consultations have not taken place such as are normal procedure for the Ministry of Agriculture on major changes of this kind. I would have thought, with great respect, that if, among other reasons, one regards the Bill as being objectionable, because no consultation has taken place with the people affected, one ought to be at liberty to adduce that as an argument for desiring to refuse the Bill a passage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There has been a previous opportunity which has been taken, but at this stage one is confined to what is actually in the Bill.

Mr. Brown: I must accept your Ruling, although I regret it—and in a way am a little surprised at it. I finish by saying that this is the very first time in my experience of the Ministry of Agriculture—going back over very many years—that the workers' unions have not been consulted on a matter about which the landlords and farmers were consulted. We regard it as one of the really black marks—perhaps the blackest—against this Minister.
When we introduced the original parent Act which is to be amended by this Bill, its purpose was to make available large sums of public money for rehabilitating our hill farms, even though they might remain in private ownership.

We were glad to do it, and some £10 million of public money has already been used to rehabilitate what is, after all, private property.
This Bill does nothing at all to improve that position. It does nothing to enable us to spend more money or to allow more rehabilitation to be done. All that it does—absolutely unnecessarily, and because of some concentration in the Minister's own mind, or that of his Department, on what he calls an anomaly and what I call bureaucratic tidiness—is to remove one of the earlier bases of the general agreement. It upsets the farmworkers unnecessarily and introduces an additional reason for friction with them—and as far as I can see contributes absolutely nothing.
There has never been a request for this Bill. There has been no real evidence that farmers were not making use of the grants that were available. There has never been any evidence that by 1956 we shall not use all the public money that is available. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said, rather proudly, that we have already used £10 million to the end of 1953 and there are another three years in which to use the rest. There is no evidence at all that the work for which the money was made available would not be done.
There is a great difference between the scope and vision of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor when he introduced the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Act and the limited scope and vision of the present Minister. The right hon. Gentleman can see no greater contribution to agriculture than the tearing down of what his predecessor did and interfering and messing about in a miserable way with the rather grand scheme that was built up.
At an earlier stage I called this a dirty little Bill. It is no cleaner now. All our attempts to clean it up a bit were resisted at every stage. It remains a dirty little Bill; a Bill that can only muddy the waters and stir up enmity and friction. It will not lead to a single additional bit of work being done, a single additional bit of money being spent, or a single additional bit of material and labour being available.
It is a nasty interference with something which was working smoothly and


well, and with the agreement of everybody. The Minister, having made up his own mind that this ought to be done for some doctrinaire and partisan reason and, without any effective attempt to understand other people's views and minds, jumped in and placed this on the Statute Book and said, "There it is. That is our view. Take it or leave it." Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House may take it, but we on this side are not prepared to take it.
Our contribution to the well-being of British agriculture will stand comparison with anything which the Government have turned their hands to since they came into office. We built; we provided things, and we expanded the industry. If hon. Members opposite want to go down to posterity as mean pullers down, mean interferers who believe in a bureaucratic tidying up of any anomaly they can find, because they have no conception of the broad plan for building up British agriculture, they may do so. For our part, we shall resist the passage of this Bill now, as we have done at every stage.

9.5 p.m.

Brigadier F. Medlicott: I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that it will receive its Third Reading tonight. I wish to take up the point with which the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) began his speech. He said that the Minister had introduced a fresh justification for this Bill. I would remind him that the Minister appears to have used almost exactly the same phrase tonight as was used by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he first commended this Bill to the House on Second Reading. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:
I should like to emphasise the latter point, and say that the need for this Bill is to bring the legislation affecting farm cottages under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts into line with existing housing legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 113.]
While he was speaking on that point the right hon. Member for Belper probably realised that we were in a position to produce evidence of the similarity between the two opening speeches, and he said that the Minister had at least given a great deal more emphasis tonight to that reason than had been given when

the Bill was first introduced. Even on that point the right hon. Gentleman was wrong, because, when the Bill was first introduced, the Minister said that the principal object of the Bill was to bring the legislation into line with the two previous Acts.
The fallacies underlying the right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight are all of a piece with those underlying most of what has been said against this Bill. Hon. Members opposite are fettered in their approach to the Bill—as they so often are on other occasions—by their own ideology. The same thing applies to the general question of housing. For a long time before the present Government took office hon. Members opposite claimed that it was not possible to build more houses.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The general question of housing does not arise under this Bill.

Brigadier Medlicott: I shall not pursue that point, but I want to make it clear that most of the arguments which have been adduced by hon. Members opposite have been based upon that fallacy.
The simple purpose of the Bill is to enable a larger number of houses to qualify for grants under the Hill Farming Act. Although it has been managed on most of the stages of this Bill, it would be out of place now to make any wide reference to the question of tied cottages, but they are very much within the scope of the Bill. During the 15 years in which I have represented a Division in Norfolk I have received fewer protests against tied cottages than can be counted on the fingers of one hand. If these protests had existed in larger numbers I should have known about them.
All the arguments which have been used by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends on the subject of tied cottages lead to the conclusion that the louder they speak now against the evils of the tied cottages the louder should speak the voices of their own consciences for doing nothing about them in the six years when they had the opportunity. I commend the Bill to the House, because it enables a larger number of services cottages to obtain the benefits which the Bill aims to provide for them, and I hope that it will receive its Third Reading tonight.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: I want briefly to say why I oppose the Bill. I oppose it, first, because, despite what the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) said, I object to the principle of the tied cottage and shall continue to do so. I object to the spending of public money on projects which deprive a man and his family of security in their homes. I think that to deprive them of that security is wrong.
Next, I object to the Bill because there has been no demand for a reversal of the policy which was contained in the Labour Government's original Act, and I also object to the Bill because, despite what the Minister said, in my opinion it emerges as a result of representations on the part of the County Landowners Association and the National Farmers' Union. Further, I object to the Bill because such actions by the Government do nothing to strengthen the good relations which should exist between employers and workers in agriculture.
I cannot help thinking that the Bill has something to do with what has been happening in the ranks of the farming community since this Government took office. To say that the farm workers view the Government's policy, or lack of policy, with suspicion or mistrust is to put it mildly.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must point out, once more, that that subject is wider than is provided for in the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Gooch: In this connection, I think that what the Minister is doing by insisting on pushing the Bill through the House is throwing a bone to a dog—I will put it that way—in an endeavour to appease it. Whether he succeeds or not remains to be seen, but in appeasing the dog he has upset many other people.
I would stress that the principle of the Measure will cause resentment in the countryside generally and not merely in the hill farming areas. After all, public money is being spent here. I have been working for a long time to get a measure of agreement between town and country. Do the Government believe that the people who live in the towns and who have to find this money out of taxation are likely to be enamoured of the countryside and all that happens in the countryside when they know that their money

is being spent for a purpose which is detrimental to those who occupy farm workers' cottages? It is not for me to go into the towns and tell the people what the Government are doing by pushing the Bill through, but I think this is a point which should be borne in mind by the Minister in connection with any legislation which he promotes in the future.
The Bill does nothing to improve the relations inside farming. Indeed, it does the reverse. I have said this repeatedly: the farm-worker in his cottage is as much entitled to security of tenure as is the efficient tenant farmer, to whom the Labour Government gave security. It cannot be denied that, instead of agreeing to this principle, the Minister and the Government have gone out of their way to show that they absolutely disagree with the statement which I have made.
I hope I shall not be called to order now, because I want to put it to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Bill has been brought in as a result of representations on the part of the County Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union. I put it to you that there would never have been a Bill but for the agitation of these two organisations. That is the root of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to offer an explanation tonight that no offence was meant in not consulting our union when the Bill was first discussed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I have said earlier, this is beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Gooch: This is the difficulty I am in; the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary made a few days ago that my people knew all about the Bill but said nothing about it has received the utmost publicity.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may be in a difficulty—I do not know—but he must seek another opportunity of redressing it.

Mr. Gooch: I appreciate that I am in a difficulty, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in my desire to bow to the Ruling of the Chair. I think that I shall have an opportunity on another occasion of repeating what I said earlier, that we must be consulted about this business, and that it is not sufficient to write to the National Union of Agricultural Workers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must insist that the hon. Member cannot pursue that matter now.

Mr. Gooch: I will put the point this way in conclusion, if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hope that one of the advantageous results of the debates on this Bill will be—and I think that I shall have the right hon. Gentleman's concurrence—that in future the Minister of Agriculture will follow the lead of his predecessor in these matters and consult the farmworkers, not merely when he wants to push up production, but also in regard to any piece of agricultural legislation which he has in mind.
I am going to vote against the Bill, and I hope that one of the results of the debate will be that in future the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will really talk to us before introducing any major agricultural legislation.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe: I think that we all appreciate the difficulties of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) in trying to make a Second Reading speech in a Third Reading debate. Whatever may be said about consultations or otherwise with the agricultural workers' union, the fact remains that all the consultations which, no doubt, took place when hon. Members opposite were in power from 1945 and 1951 between the hon. Member for Norfolk, North and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who was then Parliamentary Secretary, did not prevent the Government of that day from becoming the largest owners of tied cottage property in the country.
What the hon. Member for Norfolk, North tried to tell the House was that, in some mysterious way, it would benefit hill farming if those who occupy isolated cottages on hill farms were denied the benefits under this Bill of having the cottages brought up to standard.

Mr. G. Brown: No. They will be given them.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well from his experience during the time that he was in office what the practical difficulties are. He knows that if one advertises for a shepherd and puts in the advertisement, "No cottage available." one does

not get an answer to the advertisement. He knows that from his own experience, not only in relation to agriculture, but in relation to forestry, which has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. Gooch: How many farm-workers' cottages are standing empty on Norfolk farms today?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: None, for the simple reason that there is scarcely any unemployment in agriculture. I do not want to get out of order in this Third Reading debate. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the practical difficulties, not only on hill farms, but on all other farms, where there are key men who have to live on the farm in order to carry out the work essential to that farm.
I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their speeches this evening, have done a great disservice to the general good feeling which, I know, exists on hill farms between employer and employee. There is, in fact, no ill-feeling at all. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman himself made and the speech which the hon. Member for Norfolk, North made suggest that there is a great deal of friction between employer and employee over tied cottages, which in their hearts they know perfectly well does not exist.
I commend this Bill to the House because, as my right hon. Friend said, it brings legislation in relation to cottages on hill farms into line with the legislation for cottages on other farms. It improves the lot of those who live in isolated cottages, and it enables their amenities to be improved. For that reason, if for no other, hon. Gentlemen opposite will have to explain to their constituents their reasons for going into the Lobby to vote against the Bill.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) and the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) should raise the argument that we on this side of the House are trying to work up synthetic agitation on the issue of the tied cottage. We are merely saying that the Bill seeks to alter the good relations in the industry by amending Section 10 of the Hill Farming Act, 1946.
The original Act has worked very well, and we have always argued that there must be a partnership in the industry. Because the Minister is introducing the Bill with the object of altering the 1946 Act, and because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) has shown, he did not consult the workers in the industry, it is he himself who is reviving the whole issue of the tied cottage.
Time and time again in Committee, and even now, at this late hour on Third Reading, we have pressed for information. We have asked how the provisions of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, have been deficient, and why it is necessary to bring in this amending Bill. The Minister tonight asked us to support the Third Reading and again merely put the general case in relation to hill farming. We accept that. When we were in power we did something for hill farming by the 1946 Act, and we enabled vast sums of public money to be given to hill farmers. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has mentioned that £10 million capital has been injected into the industry and that the Act has worked very well.
Why alter the situation? Why introduce this contentious note? Why disturb relations in the industry? It is not we who are stirring up synthetic indignation. We merely say that the Minister, by asking for a Third Reading for the Bill, is tampering with an Act that has worked very well.
The case of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North is that this procedure is something which we have seen so often in the field of agriculture. The Minister said in his opening speech that owners are short of capital and need to make improvements—we accept that. That was the original purpose of the 1946 Act, and, as I have tried to emphasise, it has worked well. There has been no evidence to show that this amendment to bring the Act into line with the Housing Act, 1942, will result in the injection of any more capital into the industry. It is a very poor argument that has been put forward.
We shall certainly oppose this Measure, and I hope that we shall go into the Division Lobby against it. No reasons have been given to justify it. It is a miserable Bill; it is tampering with legis-

lation that has worked well; and it is in keeping with the general policy that is now pursued in the wider agricultural field.

9.23 p.m.

Major D. McCallum: I intervene for only a moment or two in welcoming the Bill and hoping that it will get its Third Reading this evening, as I am sure it will. I want to take up the point raised by the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Peart) and Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), that the Bill stirs up a lot of strife between employer and employee. We had that argument in Committee and on Second Reading.
For the purpose of verification, I checked up on this very point last weekend. I confess my personal interest is that I am hill farming myself. There arose the question of engaging an additional employee to assist on the farm. In my nearest village, four miles away, some cottages are being built by the local authority for agricultural employees. I asked him whether he would prefer to live in one of those cottages, with a proper tenancy and pay 25s. a week for it, or in one of my tied cottages, for which he would pay 6s. a week.

Mr. Gooch: What did the hon. and gallant Member expect him to say?

Mr. Percy Wells: On a £6 a week wage.

Major McCallum: What does anybody expect him to say? He prefers to live in the tied cottage, knowing full well that no reasonable employer would put him out. Therefore, I sincerely trust that without much more delay we shall get the Third Reading of the Bill.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. David J. Pryde (Midlothian and Peebles): I welcome a Scottish voice on this Bill, even if it was from the other side of the House, because Scotland is interested in hill farming. In England and Wales there are 5 million acres of hill land given over to hill farming, but in Scotland there are 11 million acres. We have more than twice the amount of acreage of England and Wales, but I find that the Goschen formula applies even in a debate on hill farming.
I want to support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), because we have a


very big interest in the land workers. This Bill is not going to restore good relations in the agricultural industry and in hill farming. In this country we must of necessity pay prior attention to agriculture, and in Scotland we must give the hill farms a priority.
If we are going to have this good relationship, we must see to it that the people who are employed on hill farms have the best conditions possible. Have we got the best conditions possible? Is it not true to say that the Scottish agricultural workers' wages are often trailing behind the English? Would it not be better if the Minister did more to bring about a happy balance between the wages of the workers in these two countries?
Then there are the service cottages. I will not call them tied cottages, although the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) has talked a great deal about the problem: I wonder what the hon. Member's particular experience of it is. Was he speaking from a close and intimate knowledge of the subject? The man who owns the houses owns the worker. We in the mining industry know that to our cost, and it was only when we were able to nationalise the mines that our people were freed from the ruthless employer class.
I want hon. Members to pay close attention to the organ which is the voice of the landworkers in England and Wales. If they turn to the back page they will find a long list of evictions, where men and their families have been turned out on to the streets. Is that Christianity in England and Wales in 1954? Are these the people who go to church on Sundays and are pillars of the church?
In Scotland we deprecate that, and I am bound to say that our sheriffs in the courts dispense justice with a firm hand and a true balance. I hope and trust that this House will take particular notice of the service cottage, and I ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to see that the landworker is given his place in the industry to which he is entitled, because, if things are wrong on the land, then they are wrong in all sections of society.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I should like to say a word about this Bill before we part with it. I shall probably be the last speaker from this side of the House on this Bill before we send it on its journey to another place. I do not want to make a long speech, but I want to be critical in what I say. The Minister of Agriculture has put in his first appearance tonight. We thought he ought to have been here long ago. I think in particular that the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to have been here long ago, but he has not even come along this evening. He has never been here during any part of the proceedings upon this Bill. It is a shocking thing for anyone to have to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the Minister more interested than any other in this Bill, has never once put in an appearance.
Incidentally, as the discussion was proceeding on what consultations preceded the introduction of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister told us about receiving representations but did not tell us whether the Bill was a consequence of the representations or whether it had been decided upon beforehand. May I venture another guess? It is that the origin of the Bill was probably a promise made to the Black-face Sheep Breeders' Association by the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is no doubt that the Bill had its origins in Scotland, but the Joint Under-Secretary was not able on Second Reading, nor did he endeavour in Committee, to show that there was any need in Scotland for this Bill.
On Second Reading I offered some figures in support of my view that there was no good case for this Bill in Scotland, that in fact the farmers there were taking advantage of the grants under the 1946 Act provided for in Section 10, which is being amended. During Second Reading I recalled to the Joint Under-Secretary that in 1946 he said that after travelling about his constituency he had not found a single farmer who would make application for a grant to build a cottage. The hon. Gentleman said that by reason of Section 10 the Bill would be largely nullified. He did not say that he was hopelessly wrong then, but he has to provide me with figures which prove this fact.
In Scotland on 30th November last, schemes formally approved at that time for work on farm cottages accounted for no less than £846,000. That sum of money was in respect of improvements to cottages on 978 farms. According to other information I have received from the Joint Under-Secretary, there are about four farm cottages improved for every new farm cottage built under the 1946 Act. It is easy to deduce from the figures I have just offered that, on an average, one farm cottage has been built or improved on every farm that has had an improvement scheme in Scotland.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I want to get this clear. The amount spent has been given as 18 per cent. in Scotland and 8 per cent. in England. Could the hon. Gentleman say whether that is 18 per cent. for cottages alone or for cottages and farmhouses? My experience is that there is little being done and that the 18 per cent. and 8 per cent. were spent mainly on farmhouses.

Mr. Fraser: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question, because I can easily give him the answer which he might have got from the Government Front Bench. The 18 per cent. is 18 per cent. on farm cottages and, incidentally, there is another 18 per cent. on farmhouses, making a total of 36 per cent. of the money being spent on farmhouses and farm cottages. The Joint Under-Secretary is bound to admit that the hill farmers of Scotland took advantage of the 1946 Act to provide cottages where they were needed.
I asked the Joint Under-Secretary if he knew of one farmer in the whole of Scotland who, having taken the grant under the 1946 Act, had said, "I must have a tied cottage instead of a non-tied cottage. I therefore must breach the conditions and I will repay the grant that I have received." He replied that there was not a single one. It is clear that there is not a shred of evidence to offer in support of this miserable Bill which is now placed before the House for Third Reading.
We cannot allow a Bill like this to go through. We have been accused of being doctrinaire in our approach. I remind the Minister that in 1946, when what is now Section 10 of the Act was being dis-

cussed in this House, my hon. Friends who feel so strongly about tied cottages were not happy with what we were doing. They asked us to take away the certificate procedure and to take away all the protection made available to the farmer. They said that, if we did not do that, then what was provided in Section 10 would be of little use to farm workers.
At that time we said that what we were doing was to provide a compromise between what the Conservatives then wanted and what some of my hon. Friends wanted. We offered a compromise in 1946, but the Government are not willing to compromise at all on this difficult subject about which human passions are raised. It is hon. Members opposite who have made the doctrinaire approach. They have brought in this Bill without any evidence to show that it is needed at all. In the circumstances, we shall invite the House to vote against giving it a Third Reading.

9.37 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): We can all agree that we have had a very full discussion of this Bill both on Second Reading and in Committee.

Mr. G. Brown: No.

Mr. Snadden: This is a Bill which raises a comparatively narrow point. I think that that is recognised by everybody—

Mr. Brown: No.

Mr. Snadden: —but it has engendered a considerable amount of argument and feeling on both sides of the House. That is a perfectly natural thing to happen. It is inevitable when the question of tied cottages is discussed in this Chamber.
I have argued about this subject for 15 years, and if the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) had been in his place he would have been able to say that he had argued about it for even longer. The fact of the matter is that there is a difference of opinion on this question. The party opposite dislike the tied cottage but they never abolished it, and we believe that a service cottage is part and parcel of our farming system. There we differ, but I do not think that we have ever doubted the sincerity of each other's convictions on


this issue. We hold our views perfectly frankly and sincerely on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for not being in his place, and he said that he had not appeared at all during the passage of this Bill. Actually he was sitting beside me when I made the opening speech of the debate on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Hamilton has made great play about the need for this Bill, as have several hon. Members. When I gave the figures on Second Reading I was accused by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) of having said that there was enormous improvement under the hill farming schemes. Of course, I said nothing of the kind. I gave the information to the House indicating the figures that were available for the information of the House.
If I had not given those figures I should have been accused of withholding some thing from the House of Commons. I provided the figures for the House so that it could debate the Bill. I think it a little unfair to suggest that what I was doing was to tell the House about the progress which has been made—

Mr. T. Fraser: What is the hon. Gentleman trying to prove—that good progress has been made, or that good progress has not been made? What is the position?

Mr. Snadden: I am trying to point out that I was accused of having said that enormous progress has been made under the Hill Farming Act but that I said nothing of the kind. I do not deny that considerable progress has been made, but, when this Bill is on to the Statute Book, we hope to see that progress very much increased. That is one of the reasons why we are bringing in this Bill. It is not right for the right hon. Member for Belper to quote me in the way he did.
I was glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) supported me in pointing out that no new argument had been brought forward about the object of this Bill. What my right hon. Friend said, in moving the Third Reading, was almost identical with what I said on the Second Reading. I do not think there was anything in the point made by the

right hon. Member for Belper for, looking through the various points he endeavoured to make, I did not find anything new there.
What the House has to be clear about is that we are not now discussing the general principle of the tied cottage—

Mr. Gooch: Oh, yes, we are.

Mr. Snadden: No, we are not. That was debated, as hon. Members know, and was decided when we debated the Housing Acts in the House of Commons. When hon. Members opposite were Members of the Administration they recognised the practical necessities of the service cottage by continuing to offer grants for tied cottages—

Mr. G. Brown: Not to the hill farmers.

Mr. Snadden: I am not saying that it was under the Hill Farming Act, but they recognised the principle of the tied cottage by continuing to offer grants for service cottages provided they were built in lieu of condemned cottages.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman admits that we did not do so in the case of the Hill Farming Act and that is what we are concerned about. Secondly, can he give one instance under the Housing Act in which we paid 50 per cent.?

Mr. Snadden: The Labour Government recognised the practical necessity of the tied cottage system in our farming system by continuing to offer grants for tied cottages. Why did they not abolish the tied cottage altogether? They did not do so.
By far the largest part of the farming industry at present is operating, or has been operating, in the past 18 months under the principle introduced by the Housing Acts. The figures quoted by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading were substantial evidence that there is an increased demand for grants for the reconditioning of cottages since the Housing Acts were passed by this Government.

Mr. William Ross: That is not true.

Mr. Snadden: Oh, yes. I am not going over all the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend, but he did show that since the Housing Acts were brought in by this Government and came into opera-


tion, there has been a very distinct advance in the number of applications for reconditioning grants.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Supplementary Estimates introduced and debated this week showed that in Scotland there was a saving and that the Government were not able to spend even as much as they estimated?

Mr. Snadden: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that under the Housing Acts ofthe Labour Government, which carried the condition in relation to a contract of tenancy, the average number of applications in Scotland was 37 a year. They are now 1,186. That is one year after legislation introduced by this Government repealed the condition imposed by the Labour Government.
While one must admit that may not be the only reason—because the grant has been increased, and it may be that materials have become available in greater quantities—it is an odd thing that within a year ofhaving introduced a new Housing Measure, which did exactly what we are doing in this Bill, the figure jumped from 37 to 1,186. No one can be sure what will happen in future, but on the basis of what has happened under the Housing Acts I think we may look forward to a substantial advance in our improvement schemes under the Hill Farming Bill.
I say that for another reason. We are sometimes told that the agricultural Ministers in this Government are all farmers, and, therefore, they are no good—

Mr. G. Brown: It is not their fault, it just happens to be a coincidence.

Mr. Snadden: People who have passed the major part of their life in the industry—and I am one, for I have been farming for 30 years and have an interest in a fairly large hill farm—have some knowledge of this question. There is nowhere that I can think of where the service cottage is more necessary than in the high-up hill farming areas. I am confident that when this Bill reaches the Statute Book there will be an increase in the applications for cottages.
It is true that we cannot measure the size of the deterrent. We do not know

how many people would have put forward schemes, had this deterrent been removed, and therefore to some extent our evidence must be negative. The real test will be in the future figures, and we are confident that the effect will be similar to what has taken place under the Housing Acts.
A great deal has been said about consultation, and that point was dealt with adequately by my right hon. Friend. I would say only that the position in England and Wales and the position in Scotland is exactly the same.
On the question of eviction, the general allegation has always been made, in criticism of the service cottage system—which I maintain is part and parcel of our farming policy—that a man can be summarily evicted. No one likes eviction, and in this Bill we have given the worker a reasonable opportunity to find another job by introducing a period of four weeks' notice.
No one appreciates the capabilities of the farmworker more than I, and there is no one who has attempted to look after him better than I have done. But we must remember also that the farmer has an interest, and there is the question of food production to be considered. The reason why we have chosen a period of four weeks, and not 13 weeks, as hon. Members opposite would like, is to make sure that we do not upset the proper running of the farm or interfere with food production.

Mr. P. Wells: Has any consideration been given to the suggestion that application be made to the court after four weeks, rather than that eviction should take place?

Mr. Snadden: That was dealt with in Committee by my hon. Friend.
I think that by now everything has been said about the Bill that could be said. We believe that its provisions will be welcomed by the agricultural community, as were the provisions of the Housing Acts, and I am certain that advantage will be taken of them. I am sure that no one will benefit more than the worker will do, because of the improved housing conditions which will result.

Question put.

The House divided, Ayes, 204; Noes, 188.

Division No. 39.]
AYES
[6.53 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)


Alport, C. J. M.
Banks, Col. C.
Birch, Nigel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Barber, Anthony
Bishop, F. P.


Amory. Rt. Hon Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Barlow, Sir John
Black, C. W.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Baxter, A. B.
Boothby, Sir R. J. G.


Arbuthnot, John
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bossom, Sir A. C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bowen, E. R.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.


Baker, P. A. D.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Boyle, Sir Edward




Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Holt, A. F.
Osborne, C.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Hope, Lord John
Page, R. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Horobin, I. M.
Perkins, Sir Robert


Brooman-White, R. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bullard, D. G.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hurd, A. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Campbell, Sir David
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Carr, Robert
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Redmayne, M.


Channon, H.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Jennings, Sir Roland
Renton, D. L. M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Colegate, W A.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robertson, Sir David


Conant, Mai. R. J. E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robson-Brown, W.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Kaberry, D.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kerr, H. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lang'ord-Holt, J. A.
Russell, R. S.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Leather, E. H. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Scott, R. Donald


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Shepherd, William


Deedes, W. F.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Kings Norton)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Donner, Sir P. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Doughty. C. J. A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Snadden, M. McN.


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Soames, Capt. C.


Drewe, Sir C.
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman. A. C. M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Speir, R. M.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McAdden, S. J.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
McCallum, Major D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Finlay, Graeme
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fisher, Nigel
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Storey, S.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McKibbin, A. J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Fort, R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Foster, John
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Teeling, W.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, P. J. M (Conway)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Gammans, L. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Turner, H. F. L.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Turton, R. H.


Glover, D.
Marples, A. E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Godber, J. B.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Vane, W. M. F.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maude, Angus
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Gough, C. F. H.
Maudling, R.
Vosper, D. F.


Gower, H. R.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wade, D. W.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Grimond, J.
Mellor, Sir John
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Molson, A. H. E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Wall, P. H. B.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Harden, J. R. E.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hare, Hon. J. A.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Watkinson, H. A.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Neave, Airey
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminister)


Hay, John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wellwood, W.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Heath, Edward
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Oakshott, H. D.
Wills, G.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Odey, G. W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hill, Mrs E. (Wythenshawe)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)



Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Studholme and


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Mr. Richard Thompson.


Hollis, M. C.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)








NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Grey, C. F.
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, Richard
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orbach, M.


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, T.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Padley, W. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Awbery, S. S.
Hannan, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Pannell, Charles


Baird, J.
Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.


Balfour, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Parkin, B. T.


Bartley, P.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pearson, A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.


Bence, C. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.


Benson, G.
Holman, P.
Porter, G.


Beswick, F.
Holmes, Horace
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Houghton, Douglas
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Proctor, W. T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Bowden, H. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, H (Accrington)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Brockway, A. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, W J. (Wood Green)
Richards, R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Ross, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shawcross, R. Hon. Sir Hartley


Carmichael, J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, E. W.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Coldrick, W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Collick, P. H.
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Corbet, Mrs Freda
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Craddock. George (Bradford, S.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, J. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Daines, P.
MacColl, J. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McGhee, H. G.
Steele, T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McInnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McLeavy, F.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Deer, G.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Swingler, S. T.


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sylvester, G. O.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edelman, M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Messer, Sir F.
Thornton, E.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mikardo, Ian
Timmons, J.


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomney, F.


Fienburgh, W.
Monslow, W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Finch, H. J.
Moody, A. S.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morgan. Dr. H. B. W.
Usborne, H. C.


Follick, M.
Morley, R.
Viant, S. P.


Foot, M. M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Warbey, W. N.


Forman, J. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Moyle, A.
Weitzman, D.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.
Mulley, F. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gibson, C. W.
Murray, J. D.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Glanville, James
Nally, W.
West, D. G.


Gooch, E. G.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
O'Brien, T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oldfield, W. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.







Wigg, George
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Wyatt, W. L.


Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Yates, V. F.


Wilkins, W. A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Willey, F. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)



Williams, David (Neath)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mr. Royle and Mr. Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 40.]
AYES
[9.50 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Alport, C. J. M.
Hare, Hon J. A.
Osborne, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Page, R. G.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn,W.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baker, P. A. D.
Heath, Edward
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Banks, Col. C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Barber, Anthony
Hirst, Geoffrey
Powell, J. Enoch


Barlow, Sir John
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham W.)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Holt, A. F.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hope, Lord John
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Redmayne, M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Robertson, Sir David


Black, C. W.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Robson-Brown, W.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Bowen, E. R.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Russell, R. S.


Braine, B. R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott, R. Donald


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Buchan Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Kaberry, D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Bullard, D. G.
Kerr, H. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Campbell, Sir David
Leather, E. H. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Carr, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Channon, H.
Lindsay, Martin
Speir, R. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Cole, Norman
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Storey, S.


Colegate, W. A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Studholme, H. G.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Longden, Gilbert
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, R. F.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Teeling, W.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
McCallum, Major D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Macdonald Sir Peter
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
McKibbin, A. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Deedes, W. F.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Drayson, G. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, Sir C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Vane, W. M. F.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Duthie, W. S.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vosper, D. F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wade, D. W.


Finlay, Graeme
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Fisher, Nigel
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wall, P. H. B.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Foster, John
Mellor, Sir John
Ward, Mils I. (Tynemouth)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wellwood, W.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Neave, Airey
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Glover, D.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Wills, G.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Cough, C. F. H.
Oakshott, H. D.



Graham, Sir Fergus
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimston, Hon. John (St Albans)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Major Conant and Mr. Legh.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)
Beswick, F.
Brockway, A. F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Awbery, S. S.
Blenkinsop, A.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Blyton, W. R.
Burke, W. A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Bence, C. R.
Bowden, H. W.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Bowles, F. G.
Callaghan, L. J.


Benson, G.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Carmichael, J.







Champion, A. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Royle, C.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Clunie, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, E. W.


Collick, P. H.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Keenan, W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, Dr. H. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Sparkes, J. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacColl, J. E.
Steele, T.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McInnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Fienburgh, W.
McLeavy, F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Finch, H. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sylvester, G. O.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Glanville, James
Mason, Roy
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Gooch, E. G.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thornton, E.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Messer, Sir F.
Timmons, J.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mikardo, Ian
Turner-Samuels, M.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Monslow, W.
Usborne, H. C.


Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.
Wallace, H. W.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.
Warbey, W. N.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Watkins, T. E.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mort, D. L.
Weitzman, D.


Hamilton, W. W.
Moyle, A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hannan, W.
Murray, J. D.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Nally, W.
West, D. G.


Hastings, S.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)
Padley, W. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wigg, George


Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Holmes, Horace
Parker, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Haughton, Douglas
Peart, T. F.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hubbard, T. F.
Popplewell, E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Porter, G.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsdon)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Yates, V. F.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rhodes, H.



Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Ross, William

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (WIDOWS' PENSIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of supplementary allowances and of pensions to persons who are or have been widows of certain former members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament at rates prescribed by regulations made under the said Act and in such cases prescribed by the regulations as the Secretary of Stale thinks fit—

(a) of supplementary allowances to widows of former members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are entitled to pensions payable under the enactments relating to the pensions of that force;
(b) of pensions to such widows who are not so entitled, and
(c) of supplementary allowances and pensions respectively to persons who, having been such widows as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this resolution, have remarried and again become widows.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (WIDOWS' PENSIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCES AND PENSIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.2 p.m.

Sir David Campbell: While I strongly support the Clause in general, I very much regret that subsection (2, a) has been included. On Second Reading I endeavoured to put a case for the widows who had married after their husbands had left the Royal Irish Constabulary. Many of these widows have written to me and to my Ulster colleagues pleading for help. They rightly claim that their husbands gave most courageous and most loyal service

to the British Government. They point out that other widows, whose husbands gave similar service, are drawing pensions.
I understand that other pension schemes provide that a widow should be granted a pension only if her husband was serving when they were married, but I submit that the case of the R.I.C. widows is a special one and deserves special consideration. Their husbands did not leave the Royal Irish Constabulary of their own free will. They were compelled to do so because the force, which had given such magnificent service to the Crown, was disbanded.
I appeal to the Joint Under-Secretary of State to delete paragraph (2, a) from the Bill.

Mrs. Patricia Ford: I should like to support all that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell) has said about these unfortunate widows. They are those who married after their husbands had left the Royal Irish Constabulary. Clause 1 (2, a) says that in order to qualify for a pension a woman must have married while her husband was serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary.
I realise that it is seldom possible to remove all anomalies and that a line has to be drawn somewhere, but if hon. Members had read some of the pathetic, heart-rending letters which I have received this week, since the Second Reading of the Bill, I think they would appreciate that it seems only right for a voice to be raised and a plea made on their behalf. I do not wish to delay the House by quoting from any particular letter, for the tone of each of them is the same.
Their claim—and I feel it is a strong one—is that, although they married after their husbands had left the R.I.C., they should nevertheless be entitled to a pension. There cannot be many of these women left, and the extra burden on the Exchequer would surely be very small. Some of the facts revealed in their letters show that they are living on the verge of starvation. One woman, living in the


south of Ireland, disclosed that all she had in the world was £1 a week from the Eire Government. After paying a rent of 8s. for her house, she was left with only 12s. for all her food, clothing and everything else. She was existing on dry bread and tea.
These women justly claim that their husbands courageously and loyally served the British Government through most dangerous and difficult times. In many cases, the duties they performed seriously undermined their health and sometimes even shortened their lives.
It would, of course, be unreasonable to give a pension to a widow whose husband served in the R.I.C. for only a short time. I therefore submit that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South in the Second Reading debate for a 10-year minimum service would be a fair compromise as a qualifying period for the pension. I urge the Government to accept that suggestion.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I appreciate that my hon. Friends have been speaking about individual cases of hardship. However, I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to introduce an Amendment on the lines they suggest. The provision to which they refer is one which existed in the Royal Irish Constabulary Regulations. It occurs in all the police pensions regulations in force in this country. I think it applies in all pensions regulations and schemes, and it certainly applies to the Civil Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell) sought to distinguish these cases from others. He said that the service was disbanded and, therefore, the husbands had left the service for reasons beyond their own control. It is true that that is a special circumstance affecting the service, but it is not a special circumstance affecting those who leave any service. It is not possible, I am afraid, to make an exception of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred. In the circumstances, I must tell him that it will not be possible to make any alteration.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (BENEFIT) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

7.11 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
In doing so, I should be ungenerous if I did not thank hon. Members of all parties for the help which they have given in accelerating the progress of our deliberations. This is a small but important Measure. It is the final act in our attempt to give cover to all industrially disabled men. It is a sequel to the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act, 1951, but unlike that Act it deals with diseases other than those two. Like that Act it is an enabling Measure.
The next step will be for my right hon. Friend to bring in schemes under the Bill when it is passed. He is now engaged in discussions on these schemes. Those discussions will be continued with the T.U.C. and interested parties when the Bill receives the Royal Assent. As at present envisaged, there are two schemes that will be coming forward. The first is a scheme to extend the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Scheme of 1952 to partial cases. Secondly, there is a scheme to deal with cancers that are covered by the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
As to the first, hon. Members are well aware of the formidable administrative difficulties. The right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) has drawn attention to those difficulties on previous occasions. A scheme for the partially disabled may well bring some 40,000 claims. That may entail 20,000 examinations. That is a number nearly as large as all the examinations for pneumoconiosis that are at present being made under the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
It is clear, therefore, that medical help will have to be obtained in such a way


as not to interfere with the work of healing and treatment. We have to devise means which will not interfere with the work on the Industrial Injuries Scheme and other schemes. The Ministry has already made approaches to the T.U.C. with a view to working out arrangements which, while being fair to claimants under the schemes, will make the fullest possible use of the doctors likely to be available. The date when this scheme can be introduced must depend upon the progress we make in solving the problems I have mentioned and in our discussions. The assurance I will give is that the House can rely on my right hon. Friend bringing in the scheme as soon as he possibly can.
Preliminary inquiries lead us to believe that the scheme dealing with cancers covered by the Workmen's Compensation Acts should not present great complications. The numbers involved are much smaller. We will introduce that scheme quite independently, as soon as it is ready. We hope that we shall be able to do that at a reasonably early date.
I should like to say a few words about publicity, a topic which was mentioned during the Second Reading by the hon. Members for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and Barry (Mr. Gower). We shall be proceeding on the same lines as we followed for the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Scheme. There will be an explanatory leaflet available in the local offices. Copies of that leaflet will be sent to the trade unions and other associations concerned. There will be notices in the national, local and trade Press. Announcements will be made over the wireless. I can assure Welsh Members that in the Welsh programme of publicity the announcement will be made in the correct language.
There will also be a personal invitation sent to every applicant under the 1952 scheme whom we think might have good claim to be classed as a "partial." When I last spoke on this subject I said that the number was about 900. The number is now over 1,000.
I should like to make an appeal to hon. Members. This Bill is unlike previous Bills. This is not a coalmining Bill or one confined to coalmining constituencies. Many of the men who are partially incapacitated from pneumoconiosis will have drifted some way from the coalmining constituencies. When

these schemes are introduced I ask all hon. Members to bring them to the attention of their constituents so that nobody who would otherwise be entitled to this benefit will be deprived of it through ignorance. I assure hon. Gentlemen that we shall do our best to see that full publicity is given. I call upon them to give us their help.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: We welcome this opportunity to give final approval to a Measure which deals with a matter which has caused us a great deal of concern through the years. As I said on 23rd November of last year on Second Reading, that was a very happy day for me. It is a happy day today, because I have lived to see the end of a piece of work which I began on behalf of the Miners' Federation in 1922. I was a member of a Select Committee of five appointed to consider the question of silicosis, and I am the only one left. Therefore, I speak with some feeling. I know that when this Measure gets on the Statute Book and the Regulations are drawn up, it will bring a great deal of relief to partially incapacitated men who have long been suffering under a grave injustice.
I am amazed that the Governments of the past few years have not responded more quickly to the desires which we from time to time have expressed. The right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the office of Minister of Pensions and National Insurance had a very good opportunity when he was at the Home Office. I am sure he well remembers the representations which we periodically made to him, but, unfortunately, those representations fell upon deaf ears. As time has passed, the public conscience has been awakened by the sufferings of the men in the mining areas. At long last, the injustices suffered by these men are now going to be remedied.
The Parliamentary Secretary expressed his appreciation of our help, and we are grateful for that. We endeavoured to help in every conceivable way because we wanted this Bill on the Statute Book. But, at the same time, had we not been very anxious to bring some relief to these men, we should have fought this Bill with greater tenacity than we have done. It would have been a better Bill if the


Minister had conceded the Amendments which we placed on the Order Paper.
I said on 23rd November, 1953, that the compensation of 20s. awarded to partially incapacitated men under this Bill was inadequate in relation to present day needs. I said that then, and none of the arguments advanced in Committee and nothing that has been said privately since have led me to change my mind on that point. As I said in Committee, I have examined the matter in every conceivable way in an endeavour to find a justification for that 20s. Unfortunately, I have not been able to satisfy my mind on that point.
There is no way now within our Parliamentary procedure of getting the Bill amended. We have to accept it, but we are still of the opinion that the amount proposed is inadequate for these long suffering men. Some compensation ought to have been paid to them or some consideration given to them for the long years that they have waited. In some cases, they have waited more than 20 or 30 years, and longer. Having at long last brought in this Bill, the Government now have the audacity to hand out this partial compensation of 20s.
My county of Lancashire has many famous sayings, one of which is:
Speak your mind, yet be kind
Give good advice, and yet be nice.
I want to speak very kindly to the Minister and to tell him how I feel about the utterance which he made when we were in Committee. It has been on my mind ever since, and it is as well that I should get it off my mind and that I should tell the Minister how profoundly I resent the statement which he made in the course of our deliberations. He said he knew that there were a large number of these men who were enjoying a very ripe old age. Whether a man be 19 or 90, he cannot enjoy life if he has contracted silicosis. It is a painful, long, lingering death, and for the Minister to tell the Committee and the country through the medium of the records of this House that there are men suffering from silicosis who are enjoying a ripe old age is something which I regard as detestable, and I will leave it at that.
The Minister gave us some very interesting figures during our discussions on this Bill. I would remind him—very

kindly again—that had it not been for our agitation in connection with this disease, and for the 1948 Act and the further Act of 1952, he would not have been in the position to give us those figures. It was through the medium of those two pieces of legislation that he was able to give them.
The figures were very interesting, very illuminating, and, above all, very disheartening. They showed the number of men that we now have to cover, the number of men who have contracted silicosis, the number of men who have died, and the number of men who at the moment are in doubt as to whether or not they are suffering from that disease. All these things have been revealed because we fought tenaciously to get legislation dealing with them put on the Statute Book.
The Minister referred to some very interesting figures. They are well worth noting, but I want to refer to several more figures which may prove even more interesting and which will reveal to this House and to the country the importance of the Measure we are now discussing. For many years, I was charged with the responsibility of dealing with miners and their complaints. I want to tell the House of my experience. I will not mention the scores of cases with which I dealt, but will refer only to four very briefly. They reveal the importance of this Bill.
Case No. 1is that of a man aged 60 years. His date of disablement was 29th May, 1937, and he died on 5th January, 1939. He lived for 84 weeks, Case No. 2 concerns a man aged 59. In his case the date of disablement was 7th December, 1937, and he died on 11th June, 1938. He lived for 27 weeks. Case No. 3 is that of a man aged 43 whose date of disablement was 1st November, 1939, and whose date of death was 25th January, 1941. He lived for 69 weeks. Case No. 4 is that of a man aged 51 whose date of disablement was 23rd November, 1940, and whose date of death was 10th February, 1941. He lived for eight weeks, an average period lived of 47 weeks.
I could go on for hours telling the House of cases where men have lived for only a short time after their certification of disablement. These men, unfortunately, have passed into the great beyond. They will get no benefits from this Bill and


neither will their widows and their dependants. Therefore, the delay manifested in years gone by has not only caused these men to suffer social, physical and economic disadvantages, but has also deprived their dependants of any sustenance at all.
We welcome the Bill for many reasons, but I am convinced that it does not give to these men what they are entitled to. Even on the Government's own figures, the amount should be 21s. 7d. Accepting the reduction in the value of the £, it should be at least 21s. 7d. instead of 20s. We cannot alter it. We can voice our protest and I have made my protest both on Second Reading and in Committee when, with my hon. Friends, I put down an Amendment. I make my protest now. I know that it cannot delay the Bill, but I do hope that when the Minister and his Department consider monetary values they will not be so niggardly or parsimonious as they have been today in this Bill.
I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Department are preparing the machine as quickly as they can in order that there shall be the least possible delay. I am glad that he said that assistant medical men will be employed. That is a step in the right direction, because any delay in the administration of this Bill will only make grievance and injustice more widespread than it is at the moment. The Department ought, after the passing of this Bill, to use every piece of administrative machinery, for the purpose of advertising and so on, so that the information is passed to those men who have been waiting so long for so little.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), I wish to say how much I welcome this Bill and to assure the Minister that hon. Members on these benches concerned with industries in which these dread diseases are contracted will do all they can to expedite the efficient working of the Bill.
There is one doubt which I have about the Bill. We regard it as a Bill which is applicable in the main—and rightly so; I make no complaint—to the great mining industry of this country. There is no real assurance that the Bill will apply to people suffering from these same

diseases who are engaged in other industries. I should like to be certain that this Bill will do something for those people. I know the difficulty of bringing in a broad scheme and giving benefit quickly to additional categories of people. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, I speak with some experience of cases in my own industry. There are men who have suffered from these diseases through working in exactly the same conditions as coal miners, and we find it difficult to be assured that such men will get the same quick benefit as the miners will get.
I know that I may be asking a lot. I am not, however, asking the Minister to say tonight that what we are asking for is possible. What we do ask is that when the scheme is put into operation the officials will get out of their minds the thought that this scheme is peculiar to the mining industry alone. There are other industries—the steel industry, for instance—where the same hazards exist. In the steel industry they use dry and wet silica clay and wet and dry silica sand. They have coke ovens where men unload coke and coal in the same conditions as obtain in the pits, and the men suffer from the same effects and get the same diseases.
I should like an undertaking that the Government will carefully consider this point. I know that the Minister will say that the point is dealt with in the Bill in a general way, but we want a more specific assurance than what is contained in the Bill.
I support this Bill. I do not want to deal with the inadequacy of the amounts paid. That point has been ably dealt with and will continue to be dealt with. This is the sort of Measure that we on these benches might well have introduced if we had been in power. While we were in office one of our major preoccupations was to nationalise the industry and make sure that coal was obtained. I would, however, like the Minister to give an assurance that those engaged in other industries, who give this Government the least amount of trouble, will not be forgotten when the scheme is produced.

7.36 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am very glad that we have reached the Third Reading of the Bill so speedily. I hope it will go through another place even more quickly and


that the regulations under it will be made in the quickest manner possible.
I am also glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that the greatest publicity will be given by his Department to the provisions of this Bill. I know that that was done very well indeed in connection with the 1952 Act. In mining areas particularly the local Press give great publicity to any debates of this kind so that the ex-miners are made aware that in a short time they will be able to make application.
I was interested in another point which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made. He realised that a great many people would apply for examination when the regulations are made. He has said that assistants will aid the pneumoconiosis boards. On a number of occasions I have referred to the trouble which has arisen in many cases when the diagnosis of the pneumoconiosis boards has been very different from the diagnosis of a specialist. I should like the Minister to give me a little more information about these assistants to the pneumoconiosis boards, because each time I have raised the question I have been told that the doctors who form a pneumoconiosis board are specialists and that because of their long practice they are able to diagnose much better than specialists, say, in our infirmaries in Scotland.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said:
I know that all these men are protected in a certain way because they can go every six months or each year to a pneumoconiosis board for a further examination…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 9th February, 1954; c. 21.]
However, there has come to my notice a case of one of my constituents who made application under the 1952 Act. After six months he made another application for further examination, and he has been told that he cannot have a second examination. I know that is only one case, but there may be others in other areas, and so I should like the Minister's assurance that when a man makes application after six months he will be sure to have a further examination.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that those who were examined under

the 1952 Act and who are likely to benefit by this Bill will have an application form sent to them at the earliest moment possible. I ask the Minister whether he could not dispense with sending a further application along. If there are, as he has told us tonight, just over 1,000 men who have been examined by the board, and who are not totally disabled but are partially disabled, surely it will be a very simple thing immediately to give to those 1,000 men their benefit in the very first week possible.
These men have waited for a very long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has said they have waited for 20 and 30 years. As the board has all the knowledge about them already, why not, instead of sending them further applications, pay them in the first week it is possible to do so? I hope that the Minister will give some thought to that.
I want to deal with some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince. The Minister in Committee quoted the ages of the people who had benefited under the 1952 scheme. He did so, he said, to reassure those who imagined that pneumoconiosis resulted in a diminution of the expectation of life. The Minister gave statistics, but they did not prove, to any one on this side of the House at least, that this dread disease does anything other than shorten the expectation of life. Surely it must make the expectation of life shorter for the sufferers than would have been the case if they had not contracted the disease.
It may be that a man with pneumoconiosis lived to the age of 60 or 70 years, but if he had not had pneumoconiosis he might have been able to live 10 years longer than he did. The Minister said that these men were "enjoying" a very ripe old age. Some of these men live in my constituency. They are very glad to have benefited by the 1952 Act. Some of them are living to an old age, but I should be the last to say they are enjoying their old age. I see them in the streets, I see them coming to my home, often gasping for breath. No one is going to tell me that those men are enjoying a ripe old age.
We have to accept the provision of 20s. made in the Bill. The Minister has said that, perhaps, he has erred on the side of generosity. He has said that some of the men voluntarily left the industry 20 or 30 years ago. The majority of those men


did not leave the industry voluntarily at all. They left the industry because they were advised by their doctors that they had miners' disease of the lungs and that it would be better for them to get out of the industry.
Those are the men we are thinking of tonight. Those are the men whose expectation of life has been shortened, and whose earning capacity has for 20 or 30 years been less than it would have been but for disease. I had hoped that the 20s. would have been raised to the amount for which we asked. I still hope that those who should be receiving benefit will get it under the Bill at the earliest moment possible.

7.45 p.m.

Dr. H. Morgan: I am glad to have an opportunity of speaking on a subject like this, because it happens to be one of the subjects which give the most trouble to those very few doctors who specialise in diseases caused by industry. Speaking as one who has served 20 years as medical adviser to the T.U.C. and to trade unions whose members work in occupations in which they have involuntarily to breath different kinds of dust, I can say that there are no more pathetic cases in medicine than those of men suffering from this cause. Moreover, there are no more difficult cases to diagnose, or to give advice about for the future; no more difficult cases in which to make a decent assessment of the gravity of incapacity to work, which is sometimes an incapacity for any form of work.
Many medical men who have not had experience of these industrial diseases regard them as slight. It is only in the last 10 years that industrial diseases of this type have jumped into the prominence that they have now. Previously, in spite of legislation, in spite of the good men there were sometimes upon the various boards, the men suffering from these disease had no more than what are known now to be only the preliminary examinations of their condition. Doctors in general practice, doing their very best, did not recognise these diseases. The diseases were not recognised as being caused by the sufferers' work. There had not been the requisite tuition in them.
There are many men who, at an early stage of disease, having been examined

every year, or every two or three years, have been turned down with the verdict, "This man is not suffering from inhalation of dust of any kind. He is suffering from chronic bronchitis because he is living in a certain atmosphere." Unless one has seen many, perhaps 1,000, X-ray pictures of lungs affected in this way, and has had experience of clinical examination in such cases, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to come to a true conclusion about the cause of the condition of the lungs. The disease may be silicosis or pneumoconiosis due to dust, but there are other causes of lung disaffection. Workers in the cotton industry, for instance, may find that, after a certain number of years, their lungs are affected by the inhalation of cotton fragments.
A man is turned down after examination. The examiners say, "We have examined this man carefully, examined his chest, taken X-rays." The man comes away and says, "They say all that, but still, I cannot breathe." Those men do not know. Sometimes the sufferers are sent to specialists, to schools in the North, and still are turned down. Very few hospitals in London have had the experience of examining such cases. The examiners are sometimes afraid of having to go into court lest someone may be called against them who will say, "I have seen many cases, and this is not silicosis or pneumoconiosis." That witness may have seen 12 or 14 cases. If he had had more experience he would not have said that.
This is a pathetic part of medicine. Industrial medicine is not taught in many of the 36 teaching medical schools in Great Britain.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I do not want to interrupt the interesting speech of the hon. Member, but do not think that it is related to the Bill.

Dr. Morgan: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am submitting to you that the diagnosis of dust diseases and of deposits of dust in the lungs is very important in connection with the ailments for which we are now seeking compensation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not disputing the importance of it. I am sure that


the hon. Member is right about that, but that is not one of the issues of the Bill.

Dr. Morgan: A man cannot get compensation unless he is suffering from one of the industrial lung diseases which causes him disablement. That is why he is given compensation. There is no other reason except that the dust incapacitates his lungs and he cannot breathe; but if that is your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will not pursue the matter.
I submit, however, that this is a disease caused by an industry of a particular kind. Different forms of disease produce different X-ray pictures. Sometimes they differ from one another according to the amount of dust inhaled. The ordinary layman may think that we are making a fuss about a little spot of dust in the lungs. It is enough for a man who has a little spot of dust in the lungs and who tries to do continually the work by which he earns his living, to know that he cannot work. He is disabled and he should get compensation.
Again, I come back to the difficulty of diagnosis. The doctors are confused about the diagnosis of these cases. They have only their ordinary stethoscope; sometimes they have no X-ray apparatus. I submit that all these medical facts are of importance and one of the main factors in linking up the disease from which a man is liable to disablement in a particular occupation.
I will stop now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I see that you are still rather anxious as to whether or not I am going beyond the bounds of this Bill. It is very difficult for a medical man, who has been keen about this job, not to do so, especially when he has seen so much suffering and so much criss-cross diagnosis, one doctor differing from another. Ask one doctor how many cases he has seen in the course of 20 years; he has seen 20. Ask another and he has seen 50. The medical officer to a firm in a district where these diseases are prevalent can say, "I have seen 2,000 or 3,000 cases of pneumoconiosis in the last 15 years."That man has these cases constantly brought before his eyes, and when he says, "That man has silicosis," his statement cannot be denied. When that man dies, all the doubters areset back when one cuts open the lung and sees the dust there and the lung almost consolidated.
I do ask for everything possible that can be done to be done to secure compensation for these workers, and some money ought to be available for their wives and children. This Bill should be passed with all celerity and other Bills brought in to secure the inclusion of other occupations of this description.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery: I am afraid that the last statement of the Minister created some misunderstanding or misapprehension. I gather from the speeches made since that he expressed the hope that when miners left the industry and went into other parts of the country to work efforts would be made to get this Bill known to them. I thoroughly endorse that, and I hope that will be done. But he created the impression that it was only miners who were concerned with this Bill.
I want to clear up the position if I can. In this list of prescribed industries 37 are mentioned. Not all of them will come under this Bill, but a large number will. I am concerned about some of the men who will come under this Bill when it becomes an Act. It is not wholly a pneumoconiosis and byssinosis Bill. It is a Bill, we are told, that will cover any disease, in respect of which compensation was provided under Section 43 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1945, which may have given rise to cases where compensation cannot be paid because the onset of the disablement was delayed beyond the time-limit contained in thatSection. So, practically every disease referred to in the Schedule which does not show itself for 12 months will now come within the scope of this Bill.
Like the previous speakers, I welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction. In the course of our legislation on workmen's compensation one step has followed on another. Now, in 1954, we realise that there are men suffering from industrial diseases who are getting no compensation either from their employer or from the State. I worked in an industry where men were subject to an industrial disease. Until 1911, these men were unable to receive or claim workmen's compensation. It was through the death of one of my workmates that an inquiry was held, and as a result of that inquiry the disease from which these men suffered


was brought within the schedule of industrial diseases.
These men whom we are now bringing within the scope of this Bill at the present time have been suffering for years, and we are trying to put the thing right tonight by offering them a small partial compensation of £1 a week. I do not think that we are being over-generous to these men who have given their lives to the State. We consider the soldier who has fought on the battlefield and who has been disabled or partially disabled, and we try to deal with him in a generous way;but when it comes to the men disabled or partially disabled in industry, we deal with them in a different way altogether. I am anxious, as I said in Committee, that the Minister should deal in a more generous way than he has done with men of this character.
There is the disease of pitch cancer, to which I have referred; there are silicosis and byssinosis, the diseases of the eye which arise from a man's employment, and tuberculosis. All these things will come under the Act. When the Minister carries out his promise to make this well known among people who are partially disabled because of an industrial disease, I hope that he will do it not only among the miners, but also among the men who are embraced from other industries.
This is an anomaly. It is now showing itself six years after the 1948 Act came into operation. If only for this reason, I suggest that the Minister should compensate these men with much more than £1 a week. A man might have been suffering from one of these industrial diseases for 10, 15 or 20 years. Had the disease shown itself in time, he would have claimed compensation and would have been paid during all these years. But because the disease did not show itself, no claim could be made and the man consequently has lost his compensation.
We are trying to rectify that anomaly, but what about the 10, 15 or 20 years that these men have lost? Surely we could say to them, "We realise that for so many years you have suffered pain and agony, loss of employment, and loss of social amenities which otherwise you would have enjoyed. We are now going to be generous and will give you something worth while." But instead we say

to the men, "You have suffered for 15 years and we are going to do something: we will give you now £1 a week." Surely, we can deal more generously than this with the man who is crippled in industry.
I believe the Minister said in Committee that these benefits will cost £300,000 a year. To increase the 20s. payment to 27s. would mean an expenditure of less than £400,000 a year. Surely we can manage another £100,000 to help these men out of their difficulties. After all, their number is diminishing, and in the next 10 or 12 years it will dwindle almost to nothing.
I ask the Minister whether it is possible, even at this late stage, to deal more generously with these men, who have been wronged, but not by themselves. They have suffered not because they failed to claim compensation. They have suffered all these years because the House of Commons decided that it would not see the injustice and put it right years ago. We are not only penalising a man for his suffering, but are penalising him for something that we failed to do years ago. I ask the Minister to consider this appeal generously, and I ask him to do all he can to notify men who are suffering from industrial diseases other than pnuemoconiosis and byssinosis when the Act comes into operation that they can draw benefit under it.

8.4 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: In spite of the criticisms that have been levelled against some of the provisions of the Bill at this stage in its Third Reading, I think all of us would use the adjective "civilised" with reference to legislation of this kind, for it puts an end to a situation which was really not supportable. Even if we do not find in the Bill all we would have liked, that does not mean that we are not very glad that at last the injustice which has been done to so many people comes to an end.
I was not in the House at the time, but I remember that in 1943 Parliament passed a fragment of legislation. That, too, was a benefit Bill, and it was for pneumoconiosis. An attempt was made to pick up men who were outside the former schemes, and because "pneumoconiosis," and not "pneumoconiosis and silicosis," was used, men who were suffering from silicosis and who should have


been picked up in the scheme were left out. That sort of thing will not happen with this benefit Bill, and so far as inhalation of dust and the resulting fibrosis from the inhalation of dust are concerned, it looks as if we shall virtually have covered everyone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) wondered whether people other than miners would be affected. I may be wrong, but I hope the Minister will make this clear. I was always under the impression that under this scheme it is not the industry in which one had been engaged which mattered. What matters is whether one suffers from the prescribed disease; and if so, obviously one comes within the scope of benefit. I am sure that that is the case, but we shall listen with interest to what the Minister says.
We have made known our views on the flat rate payment of 20s. for partial disablement, and I still think that the Minister has made a mistake. In my view, it is not his generosity so much as his logic which has let him down. I say this with great respect to him, for he said himself that if men were assessed as having a loss of faculty of 80 per cent. they were totally disabled, and he said that the partially disabled would on average have a loss of faculty of 35 to 40 per cent. Thus he was able to argue that the 20s. flat rate was generous.
But the right hon. Gentleman did not give enough attention to the fact that these men are moving into a position in which there is deterioration, and not betterment, so far as their disease is concerned. That is the fact that he has not taken into account. Therefore, if on the Minister's own figures the 20s. payment will be paid for an average loss of faculty of 35 to 40 per cent., he must admit that in a few years many will have become worse; but though there will be deterioration they will not have reached 80 per cent. of loss of faculty or, alternatively, total incapacity.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): indicated dissent.

Dr. Stress: The Minister shakes his head. Will he tell the House, at this late stage, that their condition is stationary? Will he not accept that if there

is a change, it is for the worse and not for the better? I want him to accept that wherever there is an element of infection in these cases, it always brings worsening. However else does one explain the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince(Mr. T. Brown)? I have no doubt that most of his instances were of men suffering from pneumoconiosis accompanied by tuberculosis; that is why they died so quickly. But there is a slow form of infected condition in these cases—the fibroid phthisical type associated with pneumoconiosis—which may live for 15 years; yet these cases definitely move forward to total incapacity within a certain time.
I know it is too late to incorporate changes at this stage, and we put down no Amendments on Report, but I ask the Minister to bear all this in mind and not to feel that he is being over-generous with a flat rate payment of 20s. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not feeling excessively indignant. I merely state that he was wrong in his judgment.

Mr. T. Brown: I am indignant about it.

Miss Herbison: So am I.

Dr. Stross: The Minister in his Second Reading speech gave us figures which were most interesting. We have got to look carefully at them. I was very happy to hear the position now, because I can remember what it was like in 1928 when I began to take an intimate interest in this type of work. I then examined an enormous number of men who were suffering and saw them not only in life but on the post-mortem table. Expectation of life was very low and that was for a number of reasons.
Before the miners were brought into any scheme we in the pottery industry had our own scheme which began in 1928. In those days we used to see examples of massive pneumoconiosis, which were more classical examples on X-ray photographic plates than those from the goldfields of Africa, because one could see lumps of rock as big as one's fist in the lung.
Since then there has been a change. It is because of those very schemes and the fact that employers had to pay compensation to ensure themselves and that the insurance company in their turn


demanded that there should be an amelioration of the conditions in the factories, together with the remarkable work done for us through the Ministry of Labour by the inspectorate that we have an improvement generally in the whole position. So the kind of picture we get is a change for the better both clinically and otherwise.
There is hardly a coal face in North Staffordshire today which is not water diffused. We do not see the people dying as we used to when I first began to take an interest in this subject. I can recall people sitting up in their chairs panting for the last four or five months of their lives, literally unable to lie down or to swallow.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member's speech is more appropriate to Second Reading than to Third Reading.

Dr. Stress: I am referring to the figures which the Minister gave to us and which were so reassuring as showing that certain changes have occurred and that it is because of those changes that it can now go out to the public that this disease is no longer as dangerous as it used to be. I think it is a fair point to make on Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On Third Reading all speeches must be limited strictly to what is in the Bill.

Dr. Stross: I think that I have made my point and I would not stress it further in any event.
May I say this one last thing. This Bill allows the Minister to make schemes, and I hope he will bear in mind that it will allow him to introduce schemes for men who suffer not only from dust inhalation but from inhalation of fumes, who have very marked pulmonary fibrosis and, in particular, bronchitis and emphysema. These men are steel smelters and others and they work in a hot atmosphere. The Minister is probably aware that it is possible sometimes under those conditions to inhale fumes of a deadly nature, and no doubt cases have been brought to his attention.
I am grateful for this Bill for it clears up most of the grievances that we have suffered from in the past, and what we have got to do from now on is to see that new types of assault are not made upon the workers by new processes which are not covered by any legislation.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: In my constituency are at least 10,000 miners, and I am naturally interested in the subject of pneumoconiosis. There is no section of the industrial community more subject to this awful disease than our coalminers, and for that reason I join with my hon. Friends in welcoming this Bill. I am glad that it has at long last reached its Third Reading. I should like to pay a compliment to all those individuals and organisations who, over the past two or two and a half years, have made such a valuable contribution in finalising the conclusions embodied in the Bill.
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will give their blessing to the Bill because of the benefits which it proposes to bestow upon those who have suffered so long and so severely and who have been greatly handicapped. Only a fortnight ago one of my constituents came to see me. He had been out of the industry sufficiently long to be penalised by the time limit. He went to the pneumoconiosis board and they would not certify him as totally disabled. Therefore, he did not come within the terms of the 1951 Act. He had seen the provisions of this Bill, and he has been constantly inquiring from me how much longer it would be before the Bill became law so that he could enjoy its benefits.
That individual is only one of many thousands so afflicted. We recall that the Minister's own estimate was at least 15,000. That is a great number of men, and many of them have for long been deprived of benefit which many of us feel they were justly entitled to. Now this Bill recognises that, and I am sure there are many people, particularly coalminers, who will welcome the Bill, because many of them have waited so long under great difficulties and under severe handicap for these benefits.
I hope there will be no misapprehensions on the part of the Minister or anyone else about one subject. Whilst we on this side of the House welcome the Bill because of the benefits which it will give, we still think that the amount of £1 a week to the partially disabled is inadequate. We would have liked the Minister to have been a little more generous. I do not want to go into the question of the average rate and those other ques-


tions which were dealt with on Second Reading and in Committee, but I should like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friends about the amount of the flat rate. We are disappointed.
I rejoice tonight with my hon. Friends because this Bill abolishes the iniquitous time limits. Those of us who have experience of coalmining, and who meet miners almost every day of our lives, know how many of them have been penalised because they have been the unfortunate victims of the time limits which, for too long, have characterised workmen's compensation.
I want the Minister to clarify a statement which he made in Committee, and which caused me some apprehension and confusion. The right hon. Gentleman said:
It is perfectly true—I want to be fair with the Committee—that in the field we are now discussing cases of very small assessment will not find a place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 9th February, 1954; c. 26.]
The Minister may have had some justification for making that statement, but for the sake of the record, I hope he will tell us what he meant in order to remove doubt from the minds of many.
I was delighted to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary indicate the proposed publicity arrangements. These cases will not be confined merely to the coalfields, and I join with the hon. Gentleman in asking all hon. Members of this House to do what they can to give the utmost publicity to these proposals. Many of those who have been the victims of the time limits have left the mining areas and gone elsewhere to earn their livelihood because they could no longer work in the pits, so I hope that we shall all do what we can in the direction of ensuring the utmost publicity.
I end, as I began, by welcoming the Bill and by expressing our hope that those who make application and are successful will experience no delay in receiving the benefit promised by the Bill.

8.24 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): This is quite a narrow Bill and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has already explained clearly what will be

done to implement it. Therefore, I shall reply only briefly to three or four of the points made in the debate. In doing so I hope that I shall not trespass beyond the bounds of order and that I shall be able to relate my remarks to matters which are in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) asked what type of case of partial incapacity would qualify for benefit under the Bill. This Bill is an attempt, I believe a successful one, to fill in gaps in the old workmen's compensation schemes. It is, therefore, the workmen's compensation test of partial incapacity which will enable a man to qualify for benefit for pneumoconiosis under the Bill. This means that the man's general physical capacity for employment is to some extent impaired.
The test has nothing whatever to do with earnings, which do not come into this picture. The extension of the Industrial Injuries Scheme which I made last month enabled those assessed at 1 per cent. to benefit, but those with such a low degree of disablement will not benefit under this scheme. This Bill will enable men who failed to qualify for workmen's compensation on account of the time limits to claim benefit.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) asked to what extent, if any, this Bill would apply to men who had pneumoconiosis but who had never been engaged in one of the employments scheduled under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. The Regulations I made last month extend the benefit for pneumoconiosis under the Industrial Injuries Scheme to men who have never worked in a scheduled occupation but who have been employed in some other occupation involving exposure to dust. By the terms of the principal Act, which this Bill amends, any amendment of that character made in the Industrial Injuries Scheme extends to cases under this Bill. It will be possible, therefore, for men whom the hon. Member for Rotherham has in mind, who have failed to get benefit for pneumoconiosis because their occupation was not scheduled under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, to make a claim under this Bill.

Mr. Awbery: So the disease will now be considered, and not the place where the man is employed?

Mr. Peake: Yes, that is the case.
Now I come to one small error of fact made by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) about the cost of the Bill. The cost is about £800,000 a year on the Industrial Injuries Fund. It was the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman supported in Committee that would have cost another £300,000.
So far as the first point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) is concerned, as she asked about one case, perhaps it would be best if she would send me particulars. The hon. Lady also asked whether those who had already been examined for total incapacity and had failed to qualify would have to be reexamined for partial incapacity. The answer is that the administration of this scheme will be in the hands of a very excellent administrative board. It will be the same board as that which administers the scheme for total incapacity, which we established under the 1951 Act.
Mr. Paul Sandlands, Q.C., is the chairman of the board, and its work has given great satisfaction. It will be for the board to decide in each individual case whether re-examination is necessary or desirable. The board will have to decide whether a man qualifies for benefit under the scheme, and I think that we can leave it safely in its hands to make the best arrangements in each individual case.
There may be cases where the board requires some small amount of further evidence. It may call for a further radiograph or something of that kind. The Bill provides, however, that benefit in cases of delay can be payable from the date of application if the board has decided in the man's favour. That is to say, although there are bound to be delays, especially on the medical side, in view of staffing difficulties of which the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) is well aware, these benefits for men who have qualified can be paid back to the date of the application.

Miss Herbison: I am extremely anxious about this aspect because from my experience I know that so many of these men have died, particularly in the cold weather which we have had recently. I am afraid that if any length of time intervenes some of those who ought to

receive this benefit will never have the satisfaction of receiving it. A letter which came to me yesterday from an old miner mentions four villages in my constituency and states that during the last cold spell—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that arises at this stage.

Miss Herbison: But this Bill will give compensation or benefit to people who are partially disabled. Surely it is right to try to make a case that compensation should be paid as quickly as possible to these men and to give reasons for making that case.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady has made the point.

Miss Herbison: I wanted to give the Minister the details, in case he does not realise what is happening to these people, particularly in cold weather.

Mr. Peake: I can assure the hon. Lady that I used to live with this problem of pneumoconiosis in the years 1942–43, which the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) recalls. I know, of course, that it is important to have these claims dealt with as soon as possible. But I do not want anyone to minimise the difficulties which we have to face on the medical side. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary used some very carefully phrased words about that in moving the Third Reading of the Bill. The matter is the subject of discussion with the T.U.C. and I hope that we shall arrive at arrangements which will enable this work to be carried through successfully and without undue delay.
I should like to say a word or two about the age groups of persons affected by this Bill. In Committee I quoted some figures, which I thought rather startled the Committee, about the ages of some of the claimants for benefit under the scheme which we passed two years ago. I will repeat the figures, because they are important.
At 31st December, 1953, out of a total of about 2,660 beneficiaries under the principal Act, seven men were over 85 years of age, 59 were between 80 and 85, 292 between 75 and 80, 552 between 70 and 75 and 639 were between 65 and 70. About 60 per cent. of the total were men already of retirement age. In


quoting these figures I had only two purposes in view. The first was to show the class of person with whom we are dealing under these schemes. They are in the main elderly men, retirement pensioners. It would not be right to assume that the majority are still at work and are suffering considerable loss of earnings at present. They have already passed into the retirement class.
Secondly, I mentioned the figures because I thought that quoting them would give some assurance to a great many sufferers from this disease who might otherwise think they were doomed to a premature death. I do not deny that in many cases this is a progressive disease, but my information is that in many other cases it is static and that sufferers live to a considerable age. I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Member for Ince, but in my time I have met a great many elderly people who, although severely crippled or disabled, do derive some enjoyment out of life.

Mr. T. Brown: We were not complaining about the figures which the Department submitted through the right hon. Gentleman. They were remarkable figures and gave us some insight into the problems with which his Department has to deal. My complaint tonight is that the right hon. Gentleman said that these men were enjoying life. If the right hon. Gentleman can point out to me a man who is suffering from silicosis and is enjoying life. I should like to see him. Our objection was that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned enjoyment of life.

Mr. Peake: I apologise to the hon. Member. I will certainly withdraw that phrase if he takes exception to it.

Mr. Brown: I do take exception.

Mr. Peake: There is one other fact about those people which I should like to mention and which is of interest. The right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West suggested that a great many of these people must be bedridden. Cer-

tainly many of them are very old, as is shown by the figures I have given. I have had an examination made of the numbers to whom we give constant attendance allowance at a scale which indicates whether they are made bedridden by their pneumoconiosis or not. I find that out of the total of 2,660 cases we are giving that allowance to cases which are almost certainly cases of bedridden people in 118 instances, about one in 25. I do not think that is exceptional when we consider the age groups of the people to whom I have referred.

Dr. Stross: Does it not follow, therefore, that what is happening is, as I tried to suggest, that there is an improvement throughout the whole field and that men are not subject to the same level as they used to be? Is that not why we have a better situation generally?

Mr. Peake: I think that is probably true. One must be extremely guarded in what deductions one draws from the figures I have given. But I think the fact that many of these people are living to a considerable old age may be a reassurance to many sufferers from this dread and terrible disease.
The only complaint which hon. Members opposite have about the Bill is that the amount of compensation which it provides is, in their view, inadequate. In choosing a rate of benefit for partial disablement I was not a free agent. I was circumscribed by the rates fixed under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, the Act of 1951 introduced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West for supplementing the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, and also by the rates fixed for total disability two years ago.
The House has welcomed the Bill. I am sure that it is a good Bill, and that, with the good will of all concerned, we can do something for what are called the forgotten men of industry.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GENERAL WEST'S BROADCAST

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: On 1st January a quite remarkable broadcast took place, I presume with the permission of the Secretary of State for War. It was a Press conference at which a number of journalists addressed questions to the recent commander of a Commonwealth Division in Korea, General West. I want to make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that nothing

that I say tonight should be in any way regarded as a criticism of General West. He is a soldier, and his appearance at that broadcast must either have been with the permission of the Secretary of State for War or because he was carrying out an order given to him by a competent military authority. My remarks are not addressed to anyone but the Secretary of State for War, and General West is out of the argument.
I very much regret the absence of the Secretary of State for War, although I do not complain of it. It is quite usual for a Parliamentary Secretary to take an Adjournment of this kind, but as the Secretary of State for War is personally implicated in this matter I should have thought he would have made an effort to


be here, particularly in view of the answer he gave to a Question in the early part of this week.
I then asked him
the number of divisions which Great Britain would produce in the event of another world war.
I was not in the least surprised that the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer. I expected that I would get such a refusal. The Secretary of State clearly realised what I was getting at, because he came down to the House with a copy of General West's broadcast. I asked him a supplementary question, in which I pointed out that General West had given the information in his broadcast and had said that in the event of another war—I will quote his words—
and God forbid their being one, but if there was, well, then, of course, you know, England would produce 40 divisions and Australia would produce 20 divisions, and so on.
What I want to establish is that General West, without any shadow of doubt—and I have now taken the opportunity of getting a second copy of the broadcast—said that in the event of war we would produce 40 divisions. The Secretary of State then went on to say:
He said that this country would produce the maximum number of divisions possible in the next war, and the figure he quoted was about the number which we had in the last war and was given as an instance of the size and effort that should likely be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1954; Vol. 523, cols. 1793 and 1794.]
I must not, within the rules of order, charge any hon. Member or Minister with deliberately telling an untruth, but the Secretary of State for War came down to this House with a copy of the broadcast. When, in answer to the supplementary question, he said that when General West said that we had 40 divisions in this country, which was about the number we had in the last war, either his veracity or his capacity to read are in question. I gave the Secretary of State notice that I was going to refer to him personally. I hope that if the Under-Secretary has some explanation—not for misleading me, because I am long past that stage—that he will seek a very early opportunity of explaining this. If one puts those statements in juxtaposition, I suggest that the personal honour of the Secretary of State is impugned.
I will ask one question which will go a long way to clear up the circumstances of the broadcast. The Under-Secretary will no doubt know that paragraph 547 of the Queen's Regulations requires an officer, or any soldier for that matter, who is going to broadcast, or to write an article for the Press to get prior permission. Was General West himself approached by the B.B.C. to make this broadcast? Did he ask permission, and was that permission given him, or was he ordered to make this broadcast as part of a policy devised and carried out in accordance with the Secretary of State's wishes? I would very much like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer that. I would give way to him willingly if he would clear that up because, on the answer hinges the rest of what I have to say. Did General West broadcast as a result of an order pr decision, or was he approached by the B.B.C. and seek permission?

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): I can give the answer to that now. He was approached by the B.B.C. and was in no way prompted by the Secretary of State to "plug" anything.

Mr. Wigg: When questioned on 19th January, 1954, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the hon. Gentleman was a little ingenuous in telling the House that General West was giving the broadcast as a result of an approach by the B.B.C.; that it was not the other way round and that he was carrying out the orders of the Secretary of State. If the B.B.C. approached the General then we have not only the Secretary of State for War to take to account but the B.B.C. as well.
The country ought to know that the Secretary of State and the present Director-General of the B.B.C. are collaborators. They collaborated in a wonderful document called "Defence in the Cold War," in which there is an amusing description of the military situation. There are some very odd views put forward as to what the country ought to do. In some respects the joint views of the Secretary of State for War and the Director-General of the B.B.C. have been put into operation.
We have this picture. Here is the B.B.C. on an issue vital to the safety of this country, approaching the Secretary


of State for War and seeking permission for General West to give a broadcast. General West then gives the broadcast and puts forward a number of views directly supporting the political policies of the party opposite, and the military views of the Director-General of the B.B.C. as expressed in "Defence in the Cold War."
This is indeed a very serious situation. If conscription—and the defence policy of the country—is to be maintained, it will not be because of slick propaganda tricks, but because the people understand it and are wholeheartedly behind it. I would have thought that it would have been commonsense to any democrat that, from the time of the Queen's speech, we should have had informal talks on the B.B.C. in which the issue of conscription could have been discussed sanely, wisely and dispassionately. In that way, the people listening could understand what it was all about, make up their minds, and would not be swayed either on the issue of two years' service or the size of the arms bill. They would not be swayed by clap trap, and would be able to make up their own minds. But on this occasion the B.B.C. went only to General West. This highly selective policy of the B.B.C. is more akin to the action of Goebbels than the Director-General of a broadcasting corporation of a great democratic society.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): If the B.B.C. is being criticised, I do not know whether the Secretary of State for War or the War Office has any responsibility for that.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry if I failed to make my point clear, Sir Rhys. General West could not have appeared at the microphone without the permission of the War Office. The fact that he did so shows that the War Office gave permission. As it was an unscripted broadcast, it may be that the War Office knew nothing about the details of discussion that was going to take place. The B.B.C. has some share of responsibility, but the person mainly responsible is the Secretary of State for War, and it is in his interests to make sure that if military policy is to be discussed on the air it should be discussed in a balanced way. A balanced opinion should be put forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) should be able to put forward his views on the air. He has a point of view which is shared by a considerable section of our countrymen. I do not share it, but there are many who hold his view, and in a democracy he should be given the opportunity to express it. I do not agree with my hon. Friend on any speech that he makes on military policy, but at least he studies the subject, and he talks a great deal more sense on particular aspects of defence than many hon. Members opposite. At least he is trying to think the problem out in modern terms.
On this issue, which may involve the physical survival of this country, the job of the War Office and the B.B.C. is to educate public opinion and not to diddle it. This broadcast is an example of an attempt to "diddle" the public by putting on the air a general with a great reputation—who has just led, successfully, a fighting formation in the field—to advocate a political line which suits hon. Members opposite. If the position had been reversed, and a Labour Minister had brought along a soldier to support the point of view of the Labour Party, what a howl there would have been.
But the Minister has an Achilles heel. He has not got his recruits. The White Paper discloses a dangerous and disastrous position. In 1952 there were 52,000 Regular recruits, and in 1953 the figure was down to 42,000, and the Under-Secretary of State for War is not optimistic enough to think that even that figure can be maintained. He tells us that the figures of recruits are not keeping up to the required level. We get a picture of a Regular Army dwindling in size, and, as the Under-Secretary knows, with an age and service structure which is all wrong.
The political reputation and future of the Secretary of State rests on solving this problem. The only way in which he can get recruits is by persuading the young men that the Army is a worthwhile organisation in which they can be proud to serve, and which is making a contribution to their own well-being and that of their country. The great medium of the radio and television ought to be used for this purpose, but not only by


persons like General West. If the Secretary of State wants to get recruits, a far better way than using generals is to use contented privates. He is not getting recruits because the rank and file of the Army are discontented. They are coming out in droves. Discontented soldiers make very bad recruiting sergeants. The right hon. Gentleman is cutting his own throat, and I do not mind that, but he is also cutting the throat of the Army, and I do care about that.
It was, indeed, an appalling decision that this broadcast should have been made without the Secretary of State having some regard for the implications of his policy. You are quite right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when you say that it would be out of order for me to press too hard about the position of the B.B.C.in this connection because, of course, the Minister has no responsibility for the B.B.C. Nevertheless, I must earnestly beg of him to go back to his right hon. Friend and to try to persuade him of the necessity to work out, not a balanced propaganda approach to the problem, because propaganda is the wrong word, but a policy of education. Public opinion in this country needs to be educated to the realities of the situation, needs to be brought face to face with these young men, needs it to be pointed out that we shall have conscription for a two-year period not for a generation but for ever unless we can recruit a Regular Army of sufficient size. The way which has been adopted is not the way to tackle that problem.
I want to give the hon. Gentleman enough time to reply, but I have one other point to make. Here, again, I trust that I shall not be too far out of order. In my view, the patronage of the B.B.C. in this form has now reached dangerous limits. I hope that on a future occasion, if Measures are brought before us, I shall be able to introduce some safeguards which will preclude those holding an office of profit under the Crown from drawing fees from the B.B.C. so that we can get as far away as possible from any concept of putting across a particular line, however attractive it may be. When I say I would debar any person holding an office of profit under the Crown from drawing fees from the B.B.C. or from commercial television, I include Members of Parliament. This is a wide sub-

ject and I want to keep in order, but I hold this view with passion. If we are to have more of this type of broadcast—the General West broadcast—the cynicism which it will produce in the rank and file will hasten the time when there will be no Regular Army at all.
Anybody who has any knowledge of the Army and who reads the White Paper which was published today can see a picture before him of hundreds of thousands of young National Service men, with two years' service; of junior N.C.O.S, up to the rank of sergeant, with a maximum of three years' service; and, at the other end of the scale, a considerable number of people about 54 or 55 years old hanging on in the Army because they have no houses to go to and because they dread returning to civilian life.
The only way, both in the short run and in the long run, in which this can be put right is for the War Office to tell the truth. Let them by all means use the radio and television, but when they do so let them make absolutely certain that they do not do it in the way which was attempted in General West's broadcast.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Peter Smithers: I read this broadcast in detail when I knew that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) had selected it as a subject for an Adjournment debate. I do not wish to spend much time on the hon. Gentleman's remarks; he was concerned with a wide variety of topics to do with the Army, and I am concerned with the broadcast and with what General West said. It seems to me that the broadcast was the straightforward and modest performance typical of any serving soldier of any rank. It was the modest performance of a man who had come back from combat service.
All reports show that the public greatly enjoyed it. All reports show that the reputation which General West has made in Korea for having gained the confidence and the affection of all who served under him was fully justified by the impression which he made on the public.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member say at the outset of his speech that there was to be no criticism of General West and that that was not a point in his argument. He went on to say that in his broadcast General West supported the


political views of the Tory Party, that the broadcast was an attempt to "diddle" the public and, finally, that if we had more of the General West type of broadcast cynicism would be rampant in the rank and file and there would be no Regular Army at all. I have never heard such ridiculous rubbish in my life.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the effect of raising this matter in the House at this time might be to damage General West's reputation. I believe that if this House were to express the sentiments of the British public today, we should not be criticising an excellent broadcast; we should, instead, be passing a vote of thanks to this able and gallant general for his services to our country.

10.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has turned his attention for a short space of time from his mammoth task of holding up Private Bill procedure to holding up General West's broadcast to criticism. He was good enough to send me the points which he proposed to elaborate this evening, and there is a little, but very little, in what the hon. Member has said.
Certainly this new method of unscripted broadcasts does introduce a new feature into publicity. I believe that this has come to stay. The B.B.C. likes these broadcasts, and the public likes them, if one may judge by the reaction of the public to General West's unscripted television appearance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War believes that they will do the Army good.
I never heard such fiddlesticks as the hon. Member produced about my right hon. Friend's honour being impugned in this matter. My right hon. Friend's answer to the Question the other day, about which the hon. Member is complaining, was absolutely straightforward, and there was nothing misleading about it at all. I will come to that particular point a little later.
It is obviously of value to the Army and to the public that Army happenings should be presented to the public and, most of all, be presented by somebody who has gone through these experiences. General West represented hot

news from a hot war, and, as I informed the hon. Member, General West's broadcast was applied for by the B.B.C. and was in no way an inspiration of ours. It arose in this way. The General had previously recorded three minutes on "Radio Newsreel," and that was such an outstanding success that the B.B.C. said, "We must have more from this chap." There was nothing political behind the movement at all.
The General was asked, as is the usual practice, to avoid political matters. In the main, I think, he succeeded.

Mr. Wigg: In the main.

Mr. Hutchison: I repeat that in the main I think he succeeded. I am coming to the various points which the hon. Member has in mind. The hon. Member has been through this broadcast with meticulous care, sucking up points of criticism like a vacuum cleaner. I will come to the particular points of criticism later.
The main burden of what the hon. Gentleman said tonight was an allegation that the B.B.C. is biased towards my right hon. Friend. If it were, I could well understand it. But the hon. Member, in a debate two days ago, on Ashridge, confessed with pride and relish that he was biased from head to foot in everything he said and on all political considerations. But other people can sometimes be unbiased.
The hon. Member has a bee in his bonnet about this, and I think that he is a modern example of the historic difference between the Tories and the Whigs. The fact is that the B.B.C. is an independent body. It is as often accused by the Right of being too Left as it is accused by the Left of being too Right, and that seems to me to leave matters just about all square and honours even.
The liaison, about which the hon. Member asked, between the B.B.C. and the War Office is exactly the same as in the days when the hon. Member was closely connected with the War Office; it is through the Directorate of Public Relations. Successive Governments have traditionally given the B.B.C. complete independence in its programmes. My noble Friend the Postmaster-General has asked me to say that the present Govern-


ment see no reason for changing that practice.
The hon. Member did not mention it this evening, but he has complained that the B.B.C. did not have a broadcast on the subject of the increase in the period of National Service from 18 months to two years, which was introduced by his party when in Government. But the B.B.C. is expressly charged not to give its opinions on matters of public policy. Whether it engages the hon. Member to give the Socialist point of view or somebody to give another point of view is its own affair. In the main, the two points of view are broadly balanced and the B.B.C.'s programme can be considered to be an independent programme. Perhaps the hon. Member's colleagues made no application to the B.B.C. at that time to have a broadcast on the subject.
Next, how does my right hon. Friend propose to deal with the problem of the unscripted broadcast? I think that this question was at the back of the hon. Member's mind, and it is right that we should think about it. I believe that no serious objection can be taken to anything that General West has said, and we do not think that any fundamental action is needed. One always learns from experience, and while there is no doubt whatever about the value of this broadcast and its general advantage to the Army, it is expected that such contentious questions will in the future be avoided.
I need not go into the general policy about communications to the Press. It is well known, it is laid down in Queen's Regulations, and the hon. Member has referred to it. Authority has to be obtained before a communication is made to the Press or a scripted broadcast can be given.
Up to a point that sustains the hon. Member's contention that one would not find in a scripted broadcast or a communication to the Press by a serving officer something in violent conflict with Government or War Office policy. The interview in question, however, was unrehearsed, and it was known to the public to be unrehearsed; it was in a quite different category. As I stated in a recent reply to Questions, we cannot be held to be responsible for what is given as a personal opinion in an unscripted broadcast.
I turn now to the more detailed and particular points of which the hon. Mem-

ber complained: first, that General West had given the numbers of divisions which would be contributed if there were, unhappily, another world war. It is important to put this statement in its proper context and to notice the actual wording. The General was explaining the unlikelihood of there being another Commonwealth division, and pointed out that in a major war each country would make its own contribution.
Then, he said:
Of course, England would produce, you know"—
as though anybody would know—
40 divisions and Australia would produce 20 divisions, and so on,
all merely illustrative. The figures are quite inaccurate. As the hon. Member must know, they were clearly figures picked out of the air to illustrate the sort of thing that would happen. What man in his senses would expect that Australia would produce half the number of divisions that Britain would produce. They were figures given purely as an illustration. That is how any unbiased member of the public listening to the broadcast would interpret them, and that is what the General told me he intended to convey.

Mr. Wigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hutchison: Please allow me to continue. There may be a moment to spare at the end.
The hon. Member then complained about the General's remark about the Suez Canal. Here, again, we must put that into its context. The General said that we had not yet left the Suez Canal, he was "glad to say." The hon. Member sees some dangerous political inference in that statement. But everybody knows that we are at present trying to negotiate an agreement with Egypt about the Suez Canal, and who would not be glad that we had not departed from Egypt before having come to an arrangement or an agreement? There are those two illustrations; I could give others, but there is not time.
The hon. Member is making a mountain out of a molehill. The line of demarcation between military and political matters is very narrowly drawn, and it is as easy to slip over it as to slip out of order in this House. I do not


think that the General slipped over it. The hon. Member thinks that he did. Be that as it may. I hope and believe that in the future any such quasi-political questions will be entirely avoided.
The hon. Member, with his position and close connection with the Army and War Office in the past, will realise how valuable it is that the Army and its doings in the far-flung fields in which it is just now should be presented to the public and kept in 1ihe public eye. I

know from our meetings in the Select Committee that the hon. Member has the Army very much at heart, though his concern for it sometimes takes some curious manifestations.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.